z' 


OF  miT. 


*     MAR  19  1907      * 


Division       IBS  2385 

1866 


SYNONYMS 


OF 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


^"   y 


RICHARD  CHEVENIX  TRENCH,  D.  D. 


SECOND  PART. 


NEW  YORK: 

CHARLES  SORIBKER  &  CO,  No.   654   BROADWAY, 

1868. 

[Published  by  arrangement  with  the  Author.] 


PREFACE. 


In  publishing  a  preceding  volume  on  Syn- 
onyms  of  the  New  Testament^  I  took  occasion 
to  observe,  that  the  synonyms  dealt  with  in 
it  might  easily  have  been  doubled  or  trebled, 
and  that  many  of  the  most  interesting  had 
been  left  altogether  untouched.  The  subject 
proves  so  inexhaustible  that,  after  another 
considerable  number  dealt  with  liere,  the 
assertion  seems  to  me  just  as  true  now  as  it 
was  then.  That  it  is  a  subject  of  interest  to 
the  student  of  theology,  and  that  the  little 
volume  did,  however  partially  and  imper- 
fectly, supply  a  want,  I  feel  assured  by  the 
several  editions  through  which  it  has   past, 


IV  PREFACE. 

and  the  requests  whicli  I  have  received  to 
add  a  second  part  to  that  first.  This  I  have 
at  length  done,  and  hope  at  some  future  day 
to  fuse  the  two  parts  into  a  single  volume. 
The  book,  though  small  in  bulk,  has  been 
sufficiently  laborious.  It  is  my  earnest  prayer 
that,  by  God's  blessing,  the  labour  may  not 
have  been  altogether  in  vain. 

Westminster,  July  27,  1868. 


SYXONTMS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

PART  II. 


§  1. — e^X^,  7rpo(7evxv»   SeT/crt?,    €VT€V^l<;,  €V')(apL(TTla, 

aLT7]/ia,   lK€T7]pia, 

Four  of  tliese  words  occur  together  at  1  Tim. 
ii.  1 ;  on  wliicli  Flacius  Illjricus  {Clavis,  s.  v.  Oratio) 
justly  observes,  ^.  Quern  vocum  acervum  procul 
dubio  Paulus  non  temere  congessit.'  It  will  be 
advisable  to  consider  not  these  only,  but  the  larger 
group  of  which  they  form  a  portion. 

Evxn  occurs  only  once  in  the  N".  T.  in  the  sense 
of  a  prayer  (Jam.  v.  15).  On  the  distinction  be- 
tween it  and  Trpocrevxn,  between  ev^'^aOaL  and  irpoa-- 
eifXeaOaVy  there  is  a  long  discussion  in  Origen  {De 
Orat.  §  2,  3,  4),  but  not  of  any  great  value,  nor 
bringing  out  more  than  the  obvious  fact  that  in 
evxi  and  €v)(ecr6ai>  the  notion  of  the  vow,  of  the 
dedicated  thing,  is  more  commonly  found  than  that 
of  prayer.  The  two  other  occasions  on  which  th§ 
1 


21  STNONTMS  OF  THE 

word  is  found  in  the  N.  T.  (Acts  xviii.  18 ;  xxi.  23), 
bear  out  this  remark. 

npoa-evxn  and  Be7jaL<;  often  in  the  N.  T.  occur 
together  (PhiL  iv.  6;  Ephes.  vi.  18;  1  Tim.  ii.  1; 
V.  5),  and  not  unfrequently  in  the  Septuagint  (Ps. 
vi.  10;  Dan.  ix.  21,  23;  1  Mace.  vii.  37).  There 
have  been  a  great  many,  but  for  the  most  part  not 
very  successful,  attempts  to  distinguish  between 
them.  Grotius,  for  instance,  ajSirms  that  they  are 
severally  *  precatio '  and  '  deprecatio ; '  that  the  first 
seeks  to  obtain  good,  the  second  to  avert  evil.  Au- 
gustine, I  may  observe  by  the  way,  in  his  treatment 
of  the  more  important  of  this  group  of  words  {JE^j?. 
149,  §  12 — 16),  which,  though  interesting,  does  not 
yield  any  defiDite  results  of  value,  observes  that  in 
his  time  this  distinction  between  ^precatio'  and 
'deprecatio'  had  practically  quite  disappeared. 
Theodoret  in  like  manner,  who  has  anticipated  Gro- 
tius here,  explains  Trpocrevxn  as  acT7]cri,<;  wyaOdv,  and 
Bi7)cn<;  as  virep  a7raWayrj<;  tcvmv  XvTrrjpcbv  iKereia 
irpo^epofievrj :  cf.  Gregory  of  ITazianzum : 

SirjcTiV  otov,  'Tr]v  oXr-riaiv  evSewi'. 

This  distinction  is  arbitrary;  neither  lies  in  the 
words,  nor  is  it  borne  out  by  usage.  Better  Calvin, 
who  makes  one  {nrpocyevxn  ^  ^  precatio ')  prayer  in 
general,  the  other  {herjai,^  =  '  rogatio ')  prayer  for 
particular  benefits  :  '  Trpocrevxn  omne  genus  orationis, 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  3 

Birja-i^  nbi  certum  aliquid  petitur ;  genus  et  species.' 
Bengel's  distinction  amounts  very  nearly  to  the 
same  thing :  '  Be7jcn<;  (a  Bel)  est  iimjploratio  gratise  in 
necessitate  quadam  speciali ;  Trpocrevx^i  oratio,  exer- 
cetur  qualibet  oblatione  voluntatum  et  desideriorum 
erga  Deum.' 

All  these  passages,  however,  while  they  have 
brought  out  one  important  point  of  distinction,  have 
failed  to  bring  out  another — namely,  that  irpoa-evxn 
is  '  res  sacra^  sl  word  restricted  to  sacred  uses ;  it  is 
always  prayer  to  God ;  BirjaL^;  has  no  such  restric- 
tion. Fritzsche  (on  Rom.  x.  1)  has  not  failed  to 
urge  this :  '  r)  irpoo-evxn  et  ^  Berja-c^;  differunt  ut  pre- 
catio  et  rogatio.  Upoa-evx^crOai  et  rj  irpoaevxv  verba 
sacra  sunt ;  precamur  enim  Deum  ;  BelaOai,  to  Berffia 
(Aristophanes,  Acharn.  1059)  et  ^  Birjai^  turn  in 
sacra  tum  in  profanare  usurpantui*.  Nam  et  Deum 
rogare  possumus  et  homines.'  It  is  the  same  dis- 
tinction as  in  our  '  prayer '  (though  that  has  been 
too  much  brought  down  to  mundane  uses)  and  '  pe- 
tition,' in  the  German  '  Gebet '  and  '  Bitte.' 

"Ei/reuf  t9  occurs  only  at  1  Tim.  ii.  1 ;  iv.  5,  in 
the  IT.  T.  (but  €VTXjyxciv€Lv  four  or  five  times)  and 
once  in  the  Septuagint  (2  Mace.  iv.  8).  '  Interces- 
sion,' by  which  the  E.  Y.  renders  it,  is  not,  as  we 
now  understand  '  intercession,'  a  satisfactory  ren- 
dering. For  eVreuft?  does  not  necessarily  mean 
what  'intercession'  at    present    exclusively    does 


^  SYNONYMS  OF  THE 

mean — ^namely,  prayer  in  relation  to  others  (at 
1  Tim.  iv.  5  such  meaning  is  impossible) ;  a  plead- 
ing either  for  them  or  against  them.  Least  of  all 
does  it  mean  exclusively  the  latter,  a  pleading 
against  our  enemies,  as  Theodoret,  on  Kom.  xi.  2, 
missing  the  fact  that  the  '  against '  lay  there  in  the 
Kardy  would  imply,  when  he  says ;  eVreu^t?  eVrt 
Karri^opicb  to)v  oZikovvtwv  ;  cf.  Hesychius :  Ber]cn,<; 
ek  iKBUrja-iv  virep  tlvo^  (Rom.  viii.  34)  /cara  tlvo^ 
(Rom.  ii.  2)  ;  but,  as  its  connexion  with  ivTvyx^^^''^> 
to  fall  in  with  a  person,  to  draw  close  to  him  so  as 
to  enter  into  familiar  speech  and  communion  with 
him,^  implies,  free  familiar  prayer,  such  as  boldly 
draws  near  to  God  (Gen.  xviii.  23  ;  Wisd.  viii.  21 ; 
cf.  Philo,  Quod  Det.  JPot  25  ;  ivrev^ec^  koI  eK^orj- 
cret?).  In  justice,  however,  to  our  Translators  it 
must  be  observed  that  'intercession'  had  by  no 
means  once  that  limited  meaning  of  prayer  for 
others  which  we  now  ascribe  to  it ;  see  Jer.  xxvii. 
18  ;  xxxvi.  25.  The  Yulgate  has  '  postulationes  ; ' 
but  Augustine,  in  a  discussion  on  this  group  of 
words  referred  to  already  {Ej?,  149.  §  12—16),  pre- 
fers '  interpellationes,'  as  better  bringing  out  the 
irappTjo-ia,  the  freedom  and  boldness  of  access  which 
is  involved  in,  and  constitutes  the  fundamental. idea 

*  The  rendering  of  5t'  cVreu^ews,  2  Mace.  iv.  8,  '  by  intercession,* 
can  scarcely  be  correct.  It  refers  more  probably  to  the  fact  of  a  con- 
fidential interview  between  Jason  and  Antiochua. 


NEW  TESTA^IENT. 


of,  the  €VT€v^L<; — '  interpellare '  being,  as  need  hardly 
be  observed,  to  interrupt  another  in  speaking,  and 
therefore  ever  implying  forwardness  and  freedom. 
Origen  {J)e  Orat.  14)  in  like  manner  makes  the 
boldness  of  access  to  God,  asking  it  may  be  some 
great  thing  (he  instances  Josh.  x.  12)  the  funda- 
mental notion  of  the  evrev^c^, 

Evxapi'O-Tia  ('  thankfulness,'  Acts  xxiv.  3 ;  '  giv- 
ing of  thanks,'  1  Cor.  xiv.  16  ;  '  thanks,'  Eev.  iv.  9 ; 
'  thanksgiving,'  Phil.  iv.  6,  E.  Y.),  a  somewhat  rare 
word  elsewhere,  is  frequent  in  sacred  Greek.  It 
would  be  out  of  place  to  dwell  here  on  the  special 
meaning  which  eu^^aptcrrta  and  '  eucharist '  have 
acquired  from  the  fact  that  in  the  Holy  Communion 
the  Church  embodies  its  highest  act  of  thanksgiving 
for  the  highest  benefits  which  it  has  received  of 
God.  Kegarding  it  as  one  manner  of  prayer,  it  is 
manifest  that  it  expresses  that  which  ought  never  to 
be  absent  from  any  of  our  devotions  (Phil.  iv.  6), 
namely,  the  grateful  acknowledgment  of  past  mer- 
cies, as  distinguished  from  the  earnest  seeking  of 
future.  As  such  it  may,  and  will  subsist  in  heaven 
(Rev.  iv.  9  ;  vii.  12)  ;  will  indeed  be  larger,  deeper, 
fuller  there  than  here ;  for  only  there  will  the  re- 
deemed know  how  much  they  owe  to  their  Lord ; 
and  this,  while  all  other  forms  of  prayer  in  the  very 
nature  of  things  will  have  ceased  in  the  entire  frui- 
tion of  the  things  prayed  for. 


6  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

Ah7]/jia  occurs  twice  in  the  N.  T.  in  the  sense  of 
petitions  of  men  to  God,  both  times  in  the  plural 
(Phil.  iv.  6 ;  1  John  v.  15) ;  it  is,  however,  bj  no 
means  restricted  to  this  meaning  (Luke  xxiii.  24 ; 
Esth.  V.  7  ;  Dan.  vi.  7).  In  a  irpoaevxn  of  any 
length  there  will  probably  be  many  alry/jLara,  being 
indeed  the  several  requests  of  which  it  is  composed. 
For  instance,  in  the  Lord's  Prayer  it  is  generally 
reckoned  that  there  are  seven  alrrjixara,  though 
some  have  regarded  the  three  lirst  as  eu;^at',  and  only 
the  last  four  as  alr'tj/jLara.  Witsius :  '  Petitio  pars 
orationis  ;  ut  si  totam  Orationem  Dominicam  voces 
orationem  aut  precationem,  singulas  vero  illius  partes 
aut  septem  postulata  petitiones.' 

'iKerrjpLa,  with  ^a/3So9  or  iXaia,  or  some  such 
word  understood,  like  iXaar'tjpiov,  dvaLaa-Ttjpiov,  and 
other  words  of  the  same  termination  (see  Lobeck, 
Patliol.  Serin.  Grcec.  p.  281),  was  originally  an  ad- 
jective, but  gradually  obtained  a  substantive  power 
and  learned  to  go  alone.  It  is  explained  by  Plu- 
tarch {Thes.  18)  :  KKaho^  diro  t?}?  tepa?  i\aia<;  ipi(p 
'KevKut  KaTeo-refi/jiivo^;  (cf.  "Wyttenbach's  Plutarchy 
vol.  xiii.  p.  89),  the  olive-branch  bound  round  with 
wool,  held  forth  by  the  suppliant  in  token  of  the 
character  which  he  bore  (^schyhis,  Eumenides,  43, 
44).  A  deprecatory  letter,  which  Antiochus  Epi- 
plianes  is  said  on  his  death-bed  to  have  written  to 
the  Jews,  is  described  in  2  Mace.  ix.  18  as  iK€TT]pia<; 


NEW  TESTAMKNT.  7 

rd^cv  'i'xpvcravt  and  Agrippa  styles  one  addressed  to 
Caligula:  ypacpr)  rjv  dvd'  lK€T7jpLa<;  irporelva)  (Philo, 
Leg,  ad  Cai,  36).  It  is  easy  to  trace  the  steps  by 
wliich  this,  the  symbol  of  supplication,  came  to  sig- 
nify the  supplication  itself.  It  does  so  on  the  only 
occasion  of  the  word's  occurrence  in  the  iN".  T.  (Heb. 
V.  1)^  being  there  joined  to  BiTj<7c<;,  as  often  elsewhere 
(Job  xl.  3 ;  Polybius,  iii.  112.  8). 

Thus  much,  on  the  distinction  between  these 
words;  although,  when  all  has  been  said,  it  will 
still  to  a  great  extent  remain  true  that  they  will 
often  set  forth,  not  different  kinds  of  prayer,  but 
prayer  contemplated  from  different  sides  and  in 
different  aspects.  Witsius  {De  Orat.  Dom.  §  4): 
'  Mihi  sic  videtur,  unam  eandemque  rem  diversis 
nominibus  designari  pro  diversis  quos  habet  aspec- 
tibus.  Preces  nostras  Se^/o-et?  vocantur,  quatenus 
lis  nostram  apud  Deum  testamur  egestatem,  nam 
Bieadac  indigere  est ;  irpo<Tev')(aLy  quatenus  vota  nos- 
tra continent ;  alTij/jLara,  quatenus  exponunt  peti- 
tiones  et  desideria ;  eVreuf  et?,  quatenus  non  tiniide 
et  diffidenter,  sedfamiliariter  Deus  se  a  nobis  adiri 
patitur ;  eVreu^t?  enim  est  colloquium  et  congressus 
familiaris ;  ivxapio'TLav  gratiarum  actionem  esse 
pro  acceptis  jam  beneficiis,  notius  est  quam  ut 
moneri  oportuit.' — On  the  Hebrew  correlatives  to 
the  several  words  just  considered,  see  Yitringa,  De 
Synagogd,  iii.  2.  13. 


8  BYNONYMS  OF  THE 


§  ii. — aavv9€T0<;,  d(T7rovBo<;. 

^AcrvvOero^  occurs  only  once  in  the  InT.T.,  namely 
at  Eom.  i.  31 ;  cf.  Jer.  iii.  8 — 11,  where  it  is  found 
several  times,  but  not  elsewhere  in  the  Septuagint. 
AaTTovho<i  occurs  twice,  Rom.  i.  31 ;  2  Tim.  iii.  3 ; 
but  in  the  former  of  these  passages  its  right  to  a 
place  in  the  text  is  contested,  as  many  important 
authorities  omit  it.  It  is  nowhere  found  in  the 
Septuagint. 

The  distinction  between  the  two  words,  as  used 
in  the  Scripture,  is  not  hard  to  draw ; — I  say,  as 
used  in  the  Scripture;  because  there  may  be  a 
question  whether  aavvOero^  has  anywhere  else  ex- 
actly the  meaning  which  it  has  there.  Elsewhere 
often  united  with  aTrXoO?,  it  has  the  sense  of  the 
Latin  ^  incompositus.'  But  the  acrvvOerot,  of  St. 
Paul  are  they  who,  being  in  covenant  and  treaty 
with  others,  refuse  to  abide  by  these  covenants 
and  treaties ;  imt]  efjufievovre^;  ral<;  avv6^Kai<;  (Hesy- 
chius) ;  ^pactorum  liaudquaquam  tenaces'  (Erasmus), 
*  bundbriichig '  (not  '  unvertraglich,'  as  Tittmann 
maintains)  ;  '  covenant-breakers,'  E.  Y.  It  is  asso- 
ciated with  d(7Td9fjL7jTo<;,  Demostlicncs,  DeFals.  Leg. 
383.  The  clo-ttovSol  (the  word  is  joined  with  da-v^- 
paTo<;  and  aKOLvcovrjTo^;,  Philo,  De  Merc.  Mer.  4), 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  9 

worse  than  the  Bvo-BloXvtoi,  (Ai-istotle,  JSthic.  Nic, 
iv.  5.  10),  who  are  onlj  hard  to  be  reconciled,  are 
the  absohitelj  irreconcileable  {aa-irovSoc  koI  aKaraX- 
XaKTOL,  Philo,  Qids  Ber.  Div.  Seer.  50) ;  those  who 
will  not  be  atoned  (using  this  word  in  its  earlier 
sense),  who  being  at  war  refuse  to  lay  aside  their 
enmity,  or  to  hear  of  terms  of  accommodation; 
*  implacabiles,  qui  semel  offensi  reconciliationem 
non  admittunt '  (Estius) ;  '  unversohnlich,'  '  im- 
placable,' E.  Y.  The  phrase,  daTrovEo^;  kol  clkt]- 
pvKTo<;  7r6\6/i09  is  frequent,  indeed  proverbial,  in 
Greek  (Demosthenes,  De  Coron.  79 ;  Philo,  De 
Proem,  et  Poen.  15  ;  Lucian,  Pise.  36) ;  in  this  con- 
nexion aKTJpvKTo^  does  not  mean,  which  was  not 
duly  announced  by  the  fecial ;  but  these  epithets 
describe  the  war  as  one  in  which  no  herald,  no  flag 
of  truce,  as  we  should  say,  is  allowed  to  pass  between 
the  parties,  no  terms  of  reconcilement  listened  to ; 
such  a  war  as  that  of  the  Carthaginians  with  their 
revolted  mercenaries.  In  the  same  sense  we  have 
elsewhere  ao-irovBo^;  fj^axfj  kol  ahioKkaKTO^  epL<;  (Aris- 
tsenetus,  2. 14)  ;  cf.  ao-Treto-ro?  koto^  (Kicander,  T/ier, 
36Y) ;  these  two  quotations  are  from  Blomfield's 
Agamemiion,  p.  285 ;  d(77rovSo<s  exOpa  (Plutarch, 
Pericles,  30);  dairovBo^  0€O9  (Euripides,  Aloestis, 
431). 

"Where  aavvOero^;  is  employed,  a  peace  is  pre- 
sumed, which  the  dcrvvderoc  refuse  to  continue,  but 
1* 


10  STITONYMS   OF  THE 

tmrigliteoiisly  interrupt;  while  aaTrovBo^  presumes 
a  state  of  war,  wliich  the  aairovhoL  refuse  to  bring 
to  a  righteous  close.  It  will  be  seen  then  that  Cal- 
vin, who  renders  aairovhoL  '  foedifragi,'  and  davvOeToo 
^  insociabiles,'  has  exactly  missed  the  force  of  both ; 
it  is  the  same  with  Theodoret,  who  on  Rom.  i.  31 
writes :  davvOirov;,  tov<;  clkolvcovtjtov  koI  Trovrjpbv 
plov  dcnra^ofiivov<;  '  daTrovBov^  tov<;  aSeftJ9  rd  axr/Kei- 
fjueva  irapa^aivovTa^.  Onlj  by  giving  to  each  word 
that  meaning  which  they  have  given  to  the  other, 
will  the  right  equivalents  be  obtained. 

In  agreement  with  what  has  been  just  said,  and 
in  confirmation  of  it,  is  the  distinction  which  Am- 
monius  draws  between  avvd^Kj]  and  o-ttovBi].  Xw- 
6rJK7j  assumes  peace ;  being  a  further  agreement,  it 
may  be  a  treaty  of  alliance,  between  those  already 
on  general  terms  of  amity.  Thus  there  was  a  o-vv- 
OrjKT)  between  the  several  states  that  were  gathered 
round  Sparta  in  the  Peloponnesian  "War,  that  with 
whatever  territory  they  began  the  war,  with  the 
same  they  should  close  it  (Thucydides,  v.  31).  But 
airovhrjy  or  more  commonly  in  the  plural,  assumes 
war,  of  which  it  is  the  cessation ;  it  may  be  only 
the  temporary  cessation,  being  often  used  of  an 
armistice  (Homer,  11.  ii.  341).  It  is  true  that  a 
GvvdrjKTj  may  be  attached  to  a  cnrovBij,  terms  of  alli- 
ance consequent  on  terms  of  peace;  thus  (nrovBy 
and  <rvvOi]/c7)  occur  together  in  Thucydides,  iv.  18 : 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  11 

but  they  are  different  things ;  in  the  o-ttovSi]  there 
is  a  cessation  of  the  state  of  war ;  there  is  peace,  or 
at  all  events  trace ;  in  the  crvvdrjKrj  there  is,  super- 
induced on  this,  a  further  agreement  or  alliance. — 
Ev(jvv6eTo<^y  I  may  observe,  which  would  be  the 
exact  opposite  of  aavvOero^y  does  not  occur  in  Greek  ; 
but  evavvOea-la,  Philo,  De  Merc.  Mer.  3. 


§  iii. — fjiaKpoOv/jbla,  vTrofiovi],  avo')(f]. 

MaKpodv^ia  and  vtto/jlov)]  occur  together  at  Col. 
i.  11,  where  Chrysostom  draws  this  distinction  be- 
tween them ;  that  a  man  fxaKpoOv^el,  who  having 
power  to  avenge  himself,  yet  refrains  from  the  exer- 
cise of  this  power ;  while  he  vTrofievec,  who  having 
no  choice  but  to  bear,  and  only  the  alternative  of  a 
patient  or  impatient  bearing,  has  grace  to  choose 
the  former.  Thus  the  faithful,  he  implies,  would 
commonly  be  called  to  exercise  the  former  grace 
among  themselves  (1  Cor.  vi.  7),  the  latter  in  respect 
of  those  that  were  without :  fiaKpodviilav  tt/do?  aV 
XtJXou?,  irjTOfiovrjv  irpo^  tov<;  e^co  •  /laKpodvfJbec  yap  ti<; 
Trpo^  4^z[vov<:  ov<;  dwarov  kol  afivvaadai  virofiivet 
Be  otf'i  ov  Bvvarai,  dfjLvva<rdac.  This,  however,  will 
not  eadure  a  closer  examination ;  for  see  decisively 
against  it  Heb.  xii.  2,  3.     He,  to  whom  virofiovr)  is 


12  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

there  ascribed,  bore,  not  certainly  because  He 
could  not  help  bearing;  for  He  might  have  sum- 
moned to  his  aid  twelve  legions  of  angels,  if  so  He 
had  willed  (Matt.  xxvi.  53).  It  may  be  well,  there- 
fore, to  consider  the  words  apart,  and  then  to  bring 
them  into  comparison,  and  try  whether  some  more 
satisfactory  distinction  between  them  cannot  be 
drawn. 

MaKpo6v/iLa  is  a  word  of  the  later  periods  of  the 
Greek  language.  It  occurs  in  the  Septuagint  (Jer. 
XV.  15),  and  in  Plutarch  {Zuc.  32),  although  not  in 
Plutarch  exactly  with  the  sense  which  in  Scripture 
it  bears.  The  long-suffering  of  men  he  prefers  to 
express  by  dve^tKaKca  {De  Cap.  ex  In.  Util.  9),  while 
for  the  grand  long-suffering  of  God  he  has  a  noble 
word,  of  his  own  coining  I  believe,  iieyaXoirdOeLa 
(Be  Ser.  Num.  Yind.  5).  The  Church  Latin  ren- 
dered it  by  '  longanimitas,'  which  the  Pheims  Yer- 
sion  sought  to  introduce  into  English  in  the  shape  of 
^  longanimity,'  but  without  success ;  and  this  though 
Jeremy  Taylor  allowed  and  employed  the  word. 
"We  have  preferred  '  long-suffering,'  and  understand 
by  it  a  long  holding  out  of  the  mind  before  it  gives 
room  to  action  or  passion — generally  to  passion. 
Anger  usually,  but  not  universally,  is  the  passion 
thus  long  held  aloof;  the  iiaKp66vfio<i  being  one 
^pahi)^  eh  6py)]V,  and  the  word  exchanged  for  Kparcov 
opyrj^,  Prov.  xvi.  32,  and  set  over  against  OvficoBTj';, 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  13 

Prov.  XV.  18.  At  the  same  time  it  need  not  neces- 
sarily be  wrath,  which  is  thus  excluded  or  set  at  a 
distance ;  for  when  the  historian  of  the  Maccabees 
describes  how  the  Eomans  had  won  the  world  "by 
their  policy  and  their  jpatience  "  (1  Mace.  viii.  4), 
fjLaKpo6ufiia  is  that  Roman  persistency  which  would 
never  make  peace  under  defeat ;  cf.  Plutarch,  Zuc, 
32,  33  ;  Isai.  Ivii.  15.  The  true  antithesis  to  fiaxpo- 
Oufila  in  that  sense  is  o^vOvfjula,  a  word  belonging  to 
the  best  times  of  the  language,  and  employed  by 
Euripides  {Androm.  729),  as  6^v6vfxo<;  by  Aris- 
totle {Bhet.  ii.  12). 

Put  vTTOfjLov^y — ^a(TCk\<;  rwv  apercov  Chrysostom 
calls  it, — is  that  virtue  which  in  heathen  Ethics 
would  be  called  more  often  by  the  name  of  Kaprepia 
(the  words  are  joined  together,  Plutarch,  Apoth, 
Lac.  Ages.  2),  and  which  Clement  of  Alexandiia, 
following  in  the  track  of  some  heathen  moralists, 
describes  as  the  knowledge  of  what  things  are  to  be 
borne  and  what  are  not  {iinaTrjiJLT]  ififjueverecov  koI 
ovK  ififievericov,  Strom,  ii.  18  ;  cf.  Plutarch,  De  PldG. 
Phil.  iv.  23),  being  the  Latin  *  perseverantia '  and 
^  patientia ' '  both  in  one,  or  more  accurately  still 

^  These  two  Cicero  {De  Invert,  ii.  54)  thus  defines :  '  Patientia 
est  honestatis  aut  utilitatis  causa  rerum  arduarum  ac  diflScilium  volun- 
taria  ac  diuturaa  perpessio ;  perseverantia  est  in  ratione  bene  con- 
Biderat^  stabilis  et  perpetua  permansio.'  Cf.  Augustine,  QucesL 
txxxiii.  qu.  31. 


14  SYNONYMS  OF  THE 

Holerantia.'  'In  tliis  noble  word  virofjiovrj  there 
always  appears  (in  the  IST.  T.)  a  background  of 
avBpela  (cf.  Plato,  Thecet.  lYT  h,  where  dvBpcKm 
virofielvaL  is  opposed  to  dvdvSp(D<;  ^evyelv) ;  it  does 
not  mark  merely  the  endura7ice,  the  '  sustinentiani ' 
(Yulg.),  or  even  the  '  patientiam  '  (Ciarom),  but  the 
*  perseverantiam,'  the  brave  patience  with  which  the 
Christian  contends  against  the  various  hindrances, 
persecutions,  and  temptations  that  befal  him  in  his 
conflict  with  the  inward  and  outward  world.'  (Elli- 
cott,  on  1  Thess.  i.  3.)  Cocceius,  too,  (on  Jam.  i. 
12)  has  described  it  well:  ''Tiro/jLovy  versatur  in 
contemtu  bonorum  hujus  mundi,  et  in  forti  suscep- 
tione  afflictionum  cum  gratiarum  actione ;  imprimis 
autem  in  constantia  fidei  et  caritatis  ut  neutro  modo 
quassari  aut  labefactari  se  patiatur,  aut  impediri 
quominus  opus  suum  et  laborem  suum  efficiat.' 

We  may  proceed  now  to  draw  a  distinction 
between  them ;  and  this  distinction,  1  believe,  will 
hold  good  in  all  places  where  the  words  occur: 
fxaKpoOvfiLa  will  be  found  to  express  patience  in 
respect  of  persons,  virofiovrj  in  respect  of  things. 
The  man  /jLaKpoOvfiel,  who,  having  to  do  with  inju- 
rious persons,  does  not  suffer  himself  easily  to  be  pro- 
voked by  them,  or  to  blaze  up  into  anger  (2  Tim. 
iv.  2).  The  man  vTrofJuevec,  who  under  a  great  siege  of 
trials,  bears  up,  and  does  not  lose  heart  or  courage 
(Rom.  V.  3 ;  2  Cor.  i.  6 ;  cf.  Clemens  Rom.  1  Fp.  5). 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  15 

We  should  speak,  therefore,  of  the  fMaKpodv/jila  of 
David  (2  Sam.  xvi.  10 — 13),  the  vTrofMovrj  of  Job 
(Jam.  V.  11).  Thus,  while  both  graces  are  ascribed 
to  the  saints,  only  ^aKpoOviila  is  an  attribute  of 
God ;  and  there  is  a  beautiful  account  of  his  fiaKpo- 
Oufiia,  though  the  word  itself  does  not  occur,  at 
Wisd.  xii.  20.  Men  may  tempt  and  provoke  Him, 
and  He  may  and  does  display  fiaKpoOvfiia  in  regard 
of  them  (Exod.  xxxiv.  6 ;  Rom.  ii.  4 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  20) ; 
there  may  be  a  resistance  to  God  in  men,  because 
He  respects  the  wills  with  which  He  has  created 
them,  even  When  those  wills  are  fighting  against 
Him.  But  there  can  be  no  resistance  to  God,  nor 
burden  upon  Him,  the  Almighty,  from  things/ 
therefore  vTrofjuovr/  cannot  find  place  in  Him,  nor  is 
it,  as  Chrysostom  rightly  observes,  ever  ascribed  to 
Him;  for  it  need  hardly  be  observed  that  when 
God  is  called  0eo9  t^?  v7rofjLovr]<;  (Rom.  xv.  5),  this 
does  not  mean,  God  whose  own  attribute  viroixovrj 
is,  but  God  who  gives  vito/jlovi]  to  his  servants  and 
saints,  in  the  same  way  as  0eo9  'xapLTo<^  (1  Pet.  v. 
10)  is  God,  who  is  the  author  of  grace ;  ©eo?  r^? 
elpijvr}^  (Heb.  xiii.  20)  God,  who  is  the  author  of 
peace.  So  Tittmann  (p.  194) :  *  ©eo?  t^?  v7rofiovrj<;, 
Deus  qui  largitur  vtto/jlov^v.^ 

*Avoxn>  iised  commonly  in  the  plural  in  classical 
Greek,  signifies,  for  the  most  part,  ^  a  truce  or  sus- 
pension of  arms,'  the  Latin  '  indutise.'     It  is  excel- 


16  BTNONYIVIS   OF   THE 

lently  rendered  '  forbearance '  on  the  two  occasions 
of  its  occurrence  in  the  1^.  T.  (Kom.  ii.  4 ;  iii. 
26).  Between  it  and  [xaKpoOvixCa  Origen  draws  the 
following  distinction  in  his  Commentary  on  the 
Romans  (ii.  4) — the  original,  as  is'  well  known,  is 
lost : — '  Sustentatio  ^clvoxv]  a  patientid  {jiaKpoOv- 
[ila]  hoc  videtur  differre,  quod  qui  infirmitate 
niagis  quam  proposito  delinquunt  sustentari  di- 
cuntur;  qui  vero  pertinaci  mente  velut  exsultant 
in  delictis  suis,  fer7'i  patienter  dicendi  sunt.' 
This  does  not  hit  off  very  successfully  the  differ- 
ence. Rather  the  avoxri  is  temporary,  transient: 
we  may  say  that,  like  the  word  '  truce,'  it  asserts 
its  own  temporary,  transient  character ;  that  after 
a  certain  lapse  of  time,  and  unless  other  condi- 
tions intervene,  it  will  pass  away.  This,  it  may  be 
urged,  is  true  of  ^aKpodvjxLa  no  less  ;  above  all,  of 
the  divine  [laKpoOv^la.  But  as  much  does  not  lie 
in  the  w^ord ;  we  may  conceive  of  a  fiaKpoOvfjula, 
though  it  would  be  worthy  of  little  honour,  which 
should  never  be  exliausted  ;  while  avoxn  implies  its 
own  merely  provisional  character.  Fritzsche  (on 
Rom.  ii.  4)  distinguishes  the  words :  ^  y  dvoxn  indul- 
gentlam  notat  qua  jus  tuum  non  continue  exequutus, 
ci  qui  te  Iseserit  spatium  des  ad  resipiscendum ; 
/?  fjiaKpoOvfjLia  clementiam.  significat  qua  irse  tem- 
perans  delictum  non  statim  vindices,  sed  ei  qui 
peccaverit  poenitendi  locum  relinquas;'    and  see 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  17 

p.  198,  on  Rom.  iii.  26,  where  he  draws  the  matter 
still  better  to  a  point:  ' Indulgentia  {y  avoxv)  eo 
valet,  nt  in  aliorum  peccatis  conniveas,  non  lit  alicui 
peccata  condones,  quod  clementicB  est ; '  it  is  there- 
fore fitly  used  at  this  last  place  in  relation  to  the 
7rdpe<n<i  d/iapTLcov  which  found  place  before  the 
atoning  death  of  Christ,  as  contrasted  with  the 
a(f>ecn,<i  d/juapTicov,  which  was  the  result  of  that  death. 
It  is  that  forbearance  or  suspense  of  wrath,  that 
truce  with  the  sinner,  which  by  no  means  implies 
that  the  wrath  will  not  be  executed  at  the  last; 
nay,  involves  that  it  certainly  will,  unless  he  be 
found  under  new  conditions  of  repentance  and  obe- 
dience (Luke  xiii.  9 ;  Rom.  ii.  13).  The  words  are 
also  distinguished,  but  the  difference  between  them 
not  very  sharply  di'awn  out,  by  Jeremy  Taylor,  in 
his  first  Sermon  '  On  the  Mercy  of  the  divine  Judg- 
ments,^ in  init. 


§  iv. — STprjvidco,  Tpv<j>d(o,  ciraToCKdai, 

In  all  these  words  lies  the  notion  of  excess,  of 
wanton,  dissolute,  self-indulgent,  prodigal  living, 
but  with  a  difference. 

Hrprjvcdv  occurs  only  twice  in  the  IS".  T.  (Rev. 
xviii.  7,  9),  crrprjvo'i  once  (Rev.  xviii.  3 ;  cf.  2  Kin. 


18  SYNONYMS  OF  THE 

xix.  28),  and  the  compound  KaraarprjvLav  as  often 
(1  Tim.  V.  11).  It  is  a  word  of  the  'New  or  Middle 
Comedy,  and  is  used  by  Lycopliron,  as  quoted  in 
Athenseus  (x.  420  b) ;  by  SopMlus  {ih,  iii.  100  a) ; 
and  Autiplianes  {id.  iii.  127  d) ;  but  rejected  by  the 
Greek  purists — Phrynichus,  indeed,  affirming  that 
none  but  one  out  of  his  senses  would  employ  it, 
having  Tpv(j)av  at  his  command  (Lobeck,  Phry- 
nichus^ p.  381).  They  do  however  different  work, 
and  oftentimes  one  would  be  no  substitute  for  the 
other,  as  will  presently  appear.  Tpvcj^dv,  which  is 
thus  so  greatly  preferred,  is  of  solitary  occurrence 
in  the  N.  T.  (Jam.  v.  5),  ivrpvcpav  (2  Pet.  ii.  13)  of 
the  same ;  but  belongs  with  rpvcprj  (Luke  vii.  25 ; 
1  Tim.  V.  11 ;  2  Pet.  ii.  13),  to  the  best  age  and 
most  classical  writers  in  the  language. 

In  arprjvcdv  {=  draKreLv,  Suidas ;  or  Bca  rbr 
irKovTov  v^pi^ecv,  Hesychius)  is  properly  the  inso- 
lence of  wealth,  the  wantonness  and  petulance  from 
fulness  of  bread ;  something  of  the  Latin  ^  lascivire.' 
There  is  nothing  of  sybaritic  effeminacy  in  it ;  so 
far  from  this  that  Pape  connects  o-rprjvo^  with 
<  strenuus ; '  and  whether  he  does  this  correctly  or 
no,  there  is  at  any  rate  always  the  notion  of  force, 
vigour,  the  German  '  Uebermuth,'  such  as  that  dis- 
played by  the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  (Gen.  xix.  4 — 
9),  implied  in  the  word.  On  the  other  hand  this 
of  effeminacy,  brokenness  of  spirit  through  self-in- 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  19 

dulgence,  is  exactly  the  point  from  whicii  Tpv(j)i] 
and  Tpv(j)av  (connected  with  Opvirreiv  and  Opvylns;) 
start ;  thus  Tpv(j>r]  koX  %/^.tS?;  (Philo,  J)e  Merc.  Me- 
ret.  §  2) ;  rpi;^^  koX  irokyreXeia  (Plutarch,  Marcus^  3) ; 
cf.  Suicer,  Thes.  s.  y.  ;  note  too  the  company  in 
which  T/3U(^77  is  found  (Plato,  Alcih.  i.  122  h) ;  these 
words  only  running  into  the  notion  of  the  insolent 
as  a  secondary  and  rarer  meaning.  It  is  thus  we 
find  united  rpvi^rj  and  i;/3/?^9  (Strabo,  vi.  1) ;  rpvcpdv 
and  v^pi^ecv  (Plutarch,  Frcec.  Ger.  Rejp.  3) ;  and 
compare  the  line  of  Menander — 

vwepr)(pav6v  irov  yiueff  rj  Xiav  rpvcp-fj. 

It  occasionally  from  thence  passes  forward  into  a 
good  sense,  and  expresses  the  triumph  and  exulta- 
tion of  the  saints  of  God  (Chrysostom,  In  Matt 
Horn.  67.  668 ;  Isai.  Ixvi.  11 ;  Ps.  xxxv.  9). 

STrardkdv  (occurring  only  1  Tim.  v.  6  ;  Jam.  v. 
6  ;  cf.  Ecclus.  xxi.  IT ;  Ezek.  xvi.  49 ;  Amos  vi.  4, 
the  last  two  being  instructive  passages),  is  more 
nearly  allied  to  rpv^dv,  with  which  at  Jam.  v.  5 
it  is  associated,  than  with  aTprjvidv,  but  it  brings  in 
the  further  notion  of  wastefulness  (=  dvaXia-Ketv, 
Hesychius),  which,  consistently  with  its  derivation 
from  a-Trdco,  aTraddco,  is  inherent  in  the  word.  Thus 
Hottinger:  'Tpv<pdv  deliciarum  est,  et  exquisitse 
voluptatiSj  a-iraraXdv  luxuriae  atque  prodigalitatis.' 
Tittmann :    '  rpv^dv  potius  mollitiam  vitse   luxu- 


20  SYNONYMS   OF  THB 

riosae,  airaraXav  petulantiam  et  prodigalitatem  de- 
notat.'  Theile,  who  takes  them  in  the  reverse 
order,  '  Componimtur  tanquam  antecedens  et  conse- 
quens;  diffluere  et  dilapidare,  luxuriare  et  lasci- 
vire.' 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  crTrarakav  might 
properly  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  Prodigal,  scat- 
tering his  substance  in  riotous  living  {^oyv  ao-corw?, 
Luke  XV.  13) ;  the  Tpvcf)dv  to  the  rich  man  faring 
sumptuously  every  day  {€V(f>paiv6/ievo<;  KaO'  rjiiepav 
XafiTTpm,  Luke  xvi.  19) ;  the  arprjvcdv  to  Jeshurun 
when,  w^axing  fat,  he  kicked  (Deut.  xxxii.  15). 


§  v. 6\L^^L^,  aT6V0')(C0p(a. 

These  words  are  often  joined  together.  Thus 
(jTevo'xwpCay  occurring  only  four  times  in  the  ~E.  T., 
occurs  thrice  in  association  with  OXl-y^L^  (Rom.  ii.  9  ; 
viii.  5 ;  2  Cor.  vi.  4 ;  cf.  Isai.  viii.  22 ;  xxx.  6).  So 
too  the  verbs  OXi^eLv  and  o-revoxcopelv,  2  Cor.  iv.  8 ; 
cf.  Lucian,  NicjTin,  13 ;  Artemidorus,  i.  79 ;  ii.  37). 
From  the  antithesis  of  the  last-mentioned  scriptural 
passage,  OXt^opbevoi,  aXX  ov  crTevo')(^ccpovfievoi,  and 
from  the  fact  that  wherever  in  the  N.  T.  the  two 
words  occur  together,  arevoxc^pici  always  occurs 
last,  we  may  conclude  that,  whatever  is  the  differ- 
ence of  meaning,  arevoxoypLa  is  the  stronger  word. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  21 

They  indeed  express  very  nearly  the  same  thing, 
but  under  changed  images.  0Xn|ri9,  which  we  find 
joined  with  fidaavo<;,  Ezek.  xii.  18,  is  properly 
pressure,  ^pressura,'  Hribulatio,' — which  last  in 
Church  Latin  had  a  metaphorical  sense,  and  in- 
deed belongs  to  Church  Latin  alone, — that  which 
presses  upon,  or  burdens  the  spirit — I  should  have 
said  ^angor,'  the  more  that  Cicero  {Tusc.  iv.  8) 
explains  this  '  segritudo  jpremens^  but  that  the  con- 
nexion of  ^  angor '  with  '  Angst,'  '  enge '  (see  Grimm, 
Worterbuch,  s.  v.  Angst)  makes  it  better  to  reserve 
this  for  (TTevoytapia, 

The  proper  meaning  of  this  latter  word  is  nar- 
rowness of  room,  confined  space,  'angustise,'  and 
then  the  painfulness  of  which  this  is  the  occasion : 
amopia  arevr)  and  aTevo')(wpLa  occur  together,  Isai. 
viii.  22.  It  is  used  literally  by  Thucydides,  vii.  TO ; 
being  sometimes  exchanged  for  Bva-xcopia  ;  by  Plu- 
tarch {Symp,  V.  6)  set  over  against  az/eo-t? :  and  in 
the  Septuagint  expresses  the  straitness  of  a  siege 
(Deut.  xxviii.  53,  57).  It  is  once  employed  in  a 
secondary  and  metaphorical  sense  in  the  O.  T. 
{aT6vo')(copLa  7rv6VfjLaT0<;,  Wisd.  v.  3),  this  being  the 
only  sense  in  which  it  is  employed  in  the  IN'ew. 
The  fitness  of  this  image  is  attested  by  the  frequency 
with  which  on  the  other  hand  a  state  of  joy  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  Psalms  and  elsewhere  as  a  bringing 
into  a  large  room  {evpvxcopia,  Marcus  Antoninus, 


22  BYKONTMS   OF   THE 

ix.  32),  I  do  not  know  whether  Aquinas  intended 
an  etymology,  but  he  certainly  uttered  a  truth, 
when  he  said,  '  laetitia  est  quasi  latitia ; '  compare 
the  use  of  TrXarfcr/xo?  by  the  Greek  Fathers ;  as  by 
Origen,  De  Orat.  30. 

AVhen,  according  to  the  ancient  law  of  England, 
those  who  wilfully  refused  to  plead,  had  heavy 
weights  placed  on  their  breasts,  and  were  so  pressed 
and  crushed  to  death,  this  was  literally  6XiyJn<;. 
When  Bajazet,  having  been  vanquished  by  Tamer- 
lane, was  carried  about  by  him  in  an  iron  cage,  this 
was  aT6vo)((opia :  or,  as  we  do  not  know  that  any 
Buffering  there  ensued  from  actual  narrowness  of 
room,  we  may  more  fitly  adduce  the  oubliettes  in 
which  Louis  the  Eleventh  shut  up  his  victims  ;  or 
the  '  little-ease '  by  which,  according  to  Lingard,  the 
Komau  Catholics  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign  were 
tortured :  *  it  was  of  so  small  dimensions  and  so 
constructed,  that  the  prisoners  could  neither  stand, 
walk,  sit,  nor  lie  in  it  at  full  length.'  The  word 
'  little-ease '  is  not  in  our  dictionaries,  but  grew  in 
our  early  English  to  a  common-place  to  express  any 
condition  of  extreme  discomfort. — Eor  some  con- 
siderations on  the  awful  sense  in  which  QKi-y^L^;  and 
a-T€vox(opla  shall  be,  according  to  St.  Paul's  words 
(Bom.  ii.  9),  alike  the  portion  of  the  lost,  see  Ger- 
hard, Zoc.  Theoll.  xxxi.  6.  52. 


KEW  TESTAMENT.  23 


§  vi. — aTrXoO?,  dKepat>o<;,  aKaKO<;,  aBo\o<;, 

In  this  group  of  words  we  have  some  of  the 
rarest  and  most  excellent  graces  of  the  Christian 
character  set  forth;  or  perhaps,  as  it  will  rather 
prove,  the  same  grace  bj  aid  of  different  images, 
and  with  only  slightest  shades  of  real  difference. 

'^ttXoO?  occurs  only  twice  in  the  N.  T.  (Matt, 
vi.  22 ;  Luke  xi.  34) ;  but  aifKoTrj^  seven  times,  or 
perhaps  eight,  always  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and 
aifKm  once  (Jam.  i.  5).  It  would  be  quite  impos- 
sible to  improve  on  '  single '  ^  by  which  our  Trans- 
lators have  rendered  it,  being  as  it  is  fj-om  aTrXoo), 
'  expando,'  '  explico,'  that  which  is  spread  out^  and 
thus  without  folds  or  wrinkles  ;  exactly  opposed  to 
the  irokvifkoKo^  of  Job  v.  13 ;  cf.  '  simplex '  (not 
'  sine  plicis '  '  without  folds ; '  but  '  one-folded,' 
'einfaltig,'  see  Donaldson,  Varroniamis,  p.  390), 
which  is  its  exact  representative  in  Latin,  and  a 
word,  like  it,  in  honourable  use.  This  notion  of 
singleness,  simplicity,  absence  of  folds,  which  thus 
lies  according  to  its  etymology  in  d7r\ov<i,  is  also  the 
j)rominent  one  in  its  use — '  animus  alienus  a  ver- 

^  See  the  learned  note  in  Fritzsche's  Commentary  on  the  Romaras^ 
vol.  iii.  p.  64,  denying  that  air\6Ti)^  has  ever  the  meaning  of  liberality, 
which  our  Translators  have  so  often  given  it 


24:  STNONTMS  OF  THE 

sutia,  fraude,  simiQatione,  dolo  malo,  et  studio  no* 
cendi  aliis'  (Suicer). 

That  all  this  lies  in  the  word  is  manifest  from 
those  with  which  we  find  it  connected,  as  airovripo^ 
(Theophrastus) ;  'yevvalo^  (Plato,  Bep.  361 V) ;  uKpa- 
T09  (Pint arch,  De  Coram.  Not,  48) ;  ao-ur^ero?,  '  in- 
compositus,'  not  put  together  (id.  ih, ;  Basil,  Adv. 
Eimom.  i.  23) ;  iMovorpoiro^  (id.  Horn,  in  Prin, 
Prov.  §  7) ;  (7aj)rj<;  (Alexis,  in  Meineke's  Frag.  Com. 
p.  750).  But  it  is  still  more  apparent  from  the 
words  to  which  it  is  opjDOsed,  as  ttoikIXo^  (Plato, 
Thecet.  146  d) ;  'iro\veL^<;  {Phoedrus^  270  d)'\  iroKv- 
T/307ro9  {Hij^.  Min.  364  e) ;  '7r€7r\ey/jL6vo<;  (Aristotle, 
Poet  13) ;  BlttXov^;  {ib.) ;  iravrohaTro';  (Plutarch, 
Quom.  Ad.  ab  Aon.  7).  AttKott)^  (see  1  Mace.  i.  37) 
is  in  like  manner  associated  with  elXiKplveia  (2  Cor. 
i.  12),  with  cLKaKia  (Philo,  Opif.  §  41) ;  the  two 
words  being  nsed  indiscriminately  in  the  Soptuagint 
to  render  the  Hebrew,  which  we  translate  now 
*  integrity'  (Ps.  yii.  8 ;  Prov.  xix.  1) ;  now  *  simpli- 
city' (2  Sam.  XV.  11);  again  with  /jLeyaXoyjrvxia 
(Josephus,  Antt.  vii.  13.  4),  with  ayaOorrj^  (Wisd.  i. 
1) ;  is  opposed  to  iroiKCkia  (Plato,  Pep.  404  e\  to 
iroXvTpoTrla,  to  KaKovpyla  (Theophylact),  to  KaKoi]' 
6eta  (Theodoret),  to  B6\o<;  (Aristophanes,  Plut. 
1158).  It  may  further  be  observed  that  en  (Gen 
XXV.  17)  which  the  Septuagint  renders  aTrXacrro?, 
Aqnila  has  rendered  aTrXoO?.     As  is  the  case  with 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  25 

at  least  one  other  word  of  the  group,  and  with  mul- 
titudes of  others  expressive  of  the  same  ethical  quali- 
ties, aTrXoO?  comes  often  to  be  used  of  a  foolish  sim- 
plicity, unworthy  of  the  Christian,  who  with  all  his 
simplicity  should  be  (ppovifio^  as  well.  It  is  so  used 
by  Basil  the  Great,  JEp.  58. 

^AKepato^  (not  in  the  Septuagint)  occurs  only 
three  times  in  the  N.  T.  (Matt.  x.  16 ;  Kom.  xvi. 
19 ;  Phil.  ii.  15).  A  mistaken  etymology,  namely, 
that  it  was  =  uKepaTo^y  and  derived  from  d  and 
K6pa<;  (cf.  Kepat^etv,  '  Isedere '),  without  horn  to  push 
or  hurt, — one  into  which  even  Bengel  falls,  who  at 
Matt.  X.  16  has  this  note:  ' aKepatoi:  sine  cornu, 
ungula,  dente,  aculeo,' — has  caused  our  Translators 
on  two  of  these  occasions  to  render  it '  harmless.' 
In  each  case,  however,  they  have  put  a  more  correct 
rendering,  '  simple  '  in  St.  Matthew,  '  sincere  '  in 
Philippians,  in  the  margin.  At  Kom.  xvi.  19  all  is 
reversed,  and  *  simple '  stands  in  the  text,  with 
'  harmless  '  in  the  margin.  The  fundamental  no- 
tion of  aKepaco^,  as  of  dKrjparo^,  which  has  the  same 
derivation  from  d  and  Kepdvvvfit,  is  the  absence  of 
foreign  admixture:  6  iir)  KeKpafjuevo^  KaKo2<;,  aXX' 
difKov^  Koi  dTToiKCko^  (Etym.  Mag.).  Thus  Philo, 
speaking  of  a  boon  which  Caligula  granted  to  the 
Jews,  but  with  harsh  conditions  annexed,  styles  it 
a  %a/3t9  ovfc  dKipaLo<;,  with  manifest  reference  to  this 
its  etymology  {De  Leg.  ad  Cai.  42) :  '  o/xtp?,  tieyjo^ 
2 


2t>  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

Kal  T7JV  %a/)^z'  8tSou9,  eScoKev  ovk  aKepaiov,  aXK 
dvafiL^a<;  avrfj  8eo9  dpyaXecorepov.^  It  is  joined  by 
Plato  with  d/3\aj3i]<;  {Rep.  i.  342  l\  and  with  opQb^ 
{Polit  268  5);  by  Plutarch  with  v-^irj^  {Adv.  Stoic. 
31);  by  Clemens  Komanus  (1  Cor.  ii.)  with  eiki 
KpLVTj^,  That,  we  may  say,  is  aKepaio^,  which  is  in 
its  true  and  natural  conditon  (Josephus,  Antt.  i. 
2.  2)  '  integer ; '  in  this  bordering  on  o\6KK7]po<^, 
although  completeness  in  all  the  parts  is  there  the 
predominant  idea,  and  not,  as  here,  immunity  from 
disturbing  elements. 

The  word  which  we  have  next  to  consider, 
a/ca/co9,  is  to  be  found  only  twice  in  the  IST.  T. 
(Heb.  vii.  26 ;  Kom.  xvi.  18).  There  are  three 
stages  in  its  history,  two  of  which  are  sufficiently 
marked  by  its  use  in  these  two  places ;  for  the 
third  we  must  seek  elsewhere.  It  is  used  in  its 
very  highest  sense,  predicating  in  Him  to  whom 
it  is  there  applied  that  absence  of  all  evil  which 
implies  the  presence  of  all  good,  at  Heb.  vii.  26, 
being  associated  there  with  other  noblest  epithets, 
and  employed  of  the  Son  of  God  Himself.  The 
Septuagint,  which  knows  all  uses  of  aKaKo^,  em- 
ploys it  sometimes  in  this  nobler  sense:  thus  at 
Job  viii.  20,  the  uKaKo^  is  opposed  to  the  da-e^rj^ ; 
and  at  Ps.  xxiv.  21  is  joined  to  the  evdrj^y  as  by 
Plutarch  {Quom.  in  Yirt.  Prof.  1)  to  the  cr(ocj)pa)v. 
The  word   at  its  next  stage  expresses  the  same 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  27 

absence  of  all  harm,  but  now  contemplated  more 
negatively  than  positively:  tbns  apviov  aKaKov 
(Jer.  xi.  19) ;  TraLBlaKT]  via  koX  ccKaxof;  (Plutarch, 
Virt.  Mul.  23).  The  N.  T.  does  not  supply  an  ex- 
ample of  the  word  at  this  its  second  stage.  The 
process  by  which  it  comes  to  signify  easily  deceived, 
and  then  too  easily  deceived,  and  aKaKui,  simplicity 
running  into  an  excess  (Aristotle,  Hhef.  ii.  12),  is 
not  difficult  to  trace.  He  who  himself  means  no 
evil  to  others,  oftentimes  fears  no  evil  from  others ; 
conscious  of  truth  in  his  own  heart,  he  believes 
truth  in  the  hearts  of  all ;  a  noble  quality,  yet  in  a 
world  such  as  ours  capable  of  being  pushed  too  far, 
where,  if  in  malice  we  are  to  be  children,  yet  in 
understanding  to  be  men  (1  Cor.  xiv.  20 ;  cf.  Matt. 
X.  16)  ;  if  "  simple  concerning  evil,"  yet  "  wise  unto 
that  which  is  good  "  (Rom.  xvi.  19).  The  word,  as 
employed  Rom.  xvi.  18,  already  indicates  this  con- 
fidence beginning  to  degenerate  into  a  credulous 
openness  to  the  being  deceived  and  led  away  from 
the  truth  {OaviiacmKol  fcal  dfcaKoi,,  Plutarch,  De 
Bed.  Bat.  Aud.  7 ;  cf.  Wisd.  iv.  12 ;  Prov.  i.  4 ; 
xiv.  15  ;  aKaKo<;  Tno-revei  iravTl  Xoyw).  For  a  some- 
what contemptuous  use  ofaKaKo<;,  see  Plato,  Timceus, 
91  d,  and  Stallbaum's  note ;  but  above  all,  the  words 
which  the  author  of  the  Second  Alcibiades  puts  into 
Socrates'  mouth  (140  c)  :  tou?  jjuev  irkelaTov  avrrj^; 
[a(j>fxo(7vv'r]<;']  fjuepo^  e'xpvra^  fiatvofievov^;  koXov/jlcv,  tov^ 


28  SYNONYMS  OF  THE 

S*  oXlyov  eKaTTOV  rfKi6lov<;  koX  ifi/SpovTijTOV^  *  ol  Be  iv 
€V(l)7)fjbOTdTOL<;  ovofiaat,  fiovXofJLevoc  /carovo/jud^eiv  ol  fiev 
/^e7aXoA|rui^ou9,  ol  8e  evi]6ec<;,  erepoL  he  d/cdKov<;  koI 
direCpovf:  koI  eVeov?. 

The  second  and  third  of  these  meanings  of 
cLKaKo^  run  so  much  into  one  another,  are  divided 
by  so  slight  and  vanishing  a  line,  that  it  is  not  won- 
derful if  some  find  rather  two  stages  in  the  word's 
use  than  three ;  Basil  the  Great,  for  example,  whose 
words  are  worth  quoting  {Horn,  in  Princ.  Prov. 
§  11)  :  AiTTm  voovfiev  rrjv  aKaKiav,  *H  fyap  ttjv  diro 
Tri<;  dfiapTLa<i  dWoTpleocrLV  Xoyca-fjuo)  KaTopOovfievrjv, 
Kol  Bia  fjLaKpa<;  Trpoaoxv^  koI  fJueXerrj^;  tcov  dyaOcov  olov 
Tcva  pi^av  rrjf;  KaKia^  eKTefiovre^,  Kara  ariprjo-LV  avTrj<; 
iravTeXrj,  rrjv  rod  clkclkov  TTpoa-Tjyoplav  he')(6ixe6a  *  tj 
uKaKia  io-TiV  r)  jxri  vrw  tov  kukov  ifiireipla  Bta  veoTrjra 
iroXKaKL^  rj  fiiov  tcvo<;  iinTrjBeva-Lv,  direlpcov  rivSiV 
Trpo^i  TLva<;  KaKia<;  BcaKecpbivcov.  Olov  elcri  nve^  t&v 
TTjV  dypoiKLav  oIkovvtcov,  ovk  etSore?  ra?  ifJuropLKa^; 
KaKovpyia^  ovBe  rd^  iv  hiKa(7TT]pL(o  BiairXoKd^.  Tov^ 
TOLOVTOV^  aKdKOV^  Xeyofiev,  ovx  <^?  ^^  Trpoaipeaeco^; 
T7]<;  KaKia<;  Ke')((opLaiievov^,  dX)C  w?  p^rj  tto)  et?  ireipav 
T^9  7rovr]pd<;  €^eco<;  d^LyjiievGV<;.  From  all  this  it  will 
be  seen  that  dKaKo<:  has  in  fact  run  the  same  course, 
and  has  the  same  history  as  aTrXoO?,  evrjOr]^,  with 
which  it  is  often  joined  (as  by  Diodorus  Sicuhis,  v 
QQ\  'bon'  (Jean  leBon  =  Tetourdi),  ^bonhommie,' 
<  silly,'  *  simple,'  *  einfaltig,'  and  many  more. 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  29 

The  last  word  of  this  beautiful  group,  dSoXo^, 
occurs  only  once  in  the  !N".  T.  (1  Pet.  ii.  2),  and  is 
there  beautifully  translated  '  sincere,' — "  the  sincere 
milk  of  the  word ; "  see  the  early  English  use  of 
'  sincere '  as  unmixed,  unadulterated  ;  and  compare, 
for  that  milk  of  the  word  which  would  not  be  sin- 
cere, 2  Cor.  iv.  2.  It  does  not  appear  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  but  aB6\a)<;  once  (Wisd.  vii.  13).  Plato 
joins  it  with  vyii]^;  (E;p.  viii.  355  e) ;  Philemo 
(Meineke,  Fragm.  Com.  p.  843)  with  yvr\(Tio<^,  It 
is  difficult  to  indicate  an  ethical  province  for  this 
word,  on  which  the  others  of  the  group  have  not 
encroached,  or,  more  truly,  which  they  have  not 
occupied  already.  It  is  indeed  impossible.  We 
can  only  regard  it  as  setting  forth  the  same  excel- 
lent grace  under  another  image,  or  on  another  side. 
Thus  if  the  aKaKo^  has  nothing  of  the  serpent's 
toothy  the  aZoko^  has  nothing  of  the  serpent's  guile  / 
if  the  absence  of  willingness  to  hurt,  the  malice  of 
our  fallen  nature,  is  predicated  of  the  a/ca/co?,  the 
absence  of  its  fraud  and  deceit  is  predicated  of  the 
aBo\o<;,  the  ^N'athanael  ''  in  whom  is  no  guile  "  (John 
i.  4:7).  And  finally,  to  sum  up  all,  we  may  say, 
that  as  the  uKaKo^  {=  '  innocens ')  has  no  harmful- 
ness  in  him,  and  the  dBo\o<;  (=  '  sincerus ')  no  guile, 
so  the  dKipaco<;  (=  '  integer  ')  no  admixture,  and  the 
a7r\oi/9  (=  '  simplex ')  no  folds. 


so  STITONT^IS   OF  THE 


§  yii. — ^poz^o9,  Kaip6<;, 

These  words  occur  together  in  several  places 
of  the  E".  T.,  but  always  in  the  plural,  X9^^^^  '^^^ 
KaipoL  (Acts  i.  7 ;  1  Thess.  v.  1) ;  and  not  unfre- 
quently  in  the  Septuagint,  Wisd.  vii.  18 ;  viii.  8 
(both  instructive  passages) ;  Dan.  ii.  21 ;  and  in  the 
singular,  Eccles.  iii.  1 ;  Dan.  vii.  12  (but  in  this  last 
passage  the  reading  is  doubtful).  Grotius  (on  Acts 
i.  7)  conceives  the  difference  between  them  to  con- 
sist merely  in  the  greater  length  of  the  xpovoi  as 
compared  with  the  Kaipoi,  and  writes :  '  xpovoi  sunt 
majora  temporum  spatia  ut  anni :  Kaipoi  minora  ut 
menses  et  dies.'  Compare  Bengel :  '  %pbvwv  partes 
KaipoU  This,  if  not  inaccurate,  is  insufficient,  and 
altogether  fails  to  reach  the  heart  of  the  matter. 

Xpovoi  is  time,  simply  contemplated  as  such; 
the  succession  of  moments  (Matt.  xxv.  19 ;  Key. 
X.  6 ;  Heb.  iv.  7) ;  amvo<^  elKcov  /avrjri],  Plato  calls  it 
{Timceus,  37  d) ;  SLao-rrj/ia  tt)^  rod  ovpavov  /civr]a-eco<;, 
Philo  {-De  Ilund.  Ojj),  7) ;  the  German  *  ZQiiraum^^ 
as  distinguished  from  '  ZQiipunhV  Thus  Severianus 
(Suicer,  Thes.  s.  v.) :  XP^^^^  /x?}/co9  eVrt,  Kalpo<;  ev- 
Kaipla.  Kacp6<;,  derived  from  /celpco,  as  '  tempus ' 
from  '  temno,'  is  time  as  it  brings  forth  its  several 
births ;  thus  Kaipoi  OepiapLov  (Matt.  xiii.  30) ;  Kaipo<; 
(TVKcov  (Mark  xi.  13) ;  Christ  died  Kara  Kaipbv  (Kom. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  31 

V.  6) ;  and,  above  all,  compare  Eccles.  iii.  1 — 8. 
XpGvo<;,  it  will  be  seen  from  this,  embraces  all  possi- 
ble KaipoC,  and  being  the  larger,  more  inclusive 
word,  may  be  often  used  wbere  Kaipo^  wonld  Lave 
been  equally  suitable,  though  not  mce  versa  /  thus 
')(p6vo<i  Tov  reKelv,  the  time  of  bringing  forth  (Luke 
i.  37) ;  TrXrjpdyixa  tov  xpovov  (Gal.  iv.  4),  the  fulness, 
or  the  ripeness,  of  the  time  for  the  manifestation  of 
the  Son  of  God,  when  we  should  before  have  rather 
expected  tov  Kaipov,  or  tojv  Kacpojv,  which  last  phrase 
doCi?  actually  occur  Ephes.  i.  10.  So,  too,  there  is 
every  reason  to  think  that  the  xpovot,  an  oicaTa- 
crTa<7ec£)9  of  Acts  iii.  21  are  identical  with  the  Kacpol 
ava-y^v^eco'i  of  the  verse  preceding.  Thus  it  is  possi- 
ble to  speak  of  the  Katpo<;  ;i^jo6i/ou,  and  Sophocles 
{£2ect,  1292)  does  so : 

Xpouou  yap  clv  (Tol  Kaiphv  i^eipyoi  \6yos, 

but  not  of  the  %poj/o9  Kaipov ;  cf.  Olympiodoiiis 
(Suicer,  TTies,  s.  v.  ^pot'o?):  %p6i/09  fj^iv  ia-Ti  to 
Bcda-Trjfia  Kad'  6  irpaTTeTal  tc  '  KUipo^  Be  6  eTTLTrjBeL0<; 
T^9  ipyaala'i  Xpovo^  •  wcrre  6  fiev  ypovo'^  koX  Katpo<: 
elvac  BvvaTao'  6  Be  KaLpo<s  ov  %/5W09,  aX-X*  evKaipla 
TOV  wpaTTo/jbivov  iv  %poVft)  ycvofievrj,  Ammonius :  o 
aev  Kaipov  BrjXol  TTOLOTrjTa  ^povov,  ;^/5oi/09  Be  iroab- 

T7)Ta. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  will  be  seen  that 
when  the  Apostles  ask  the  Lord, '  Wilt  Thou  at  this 


6^J  BYKONTMS   OF  THE 

time  restore  again  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ? "  and  He 
makes  answer,  "  It  is  not  for  jou  to  know  tlie  times 
or  the  seasons  "  (^poi^of?  rj  Kaupov^,  Acts  i.  6,  7), 
'the  times'  (^poi/ot)  are,  in  Augustine's  words, 
'  i]3sa  spatia  temporum,'  the  spaces  of  time,  contem- 
plated merely  under  the  aspect  of  its  duration,  over 
which  the  Church's  history  should  extend ;  but  '  the 
seasons '  (jcaipol)  are  the  joints,  the  articulations,  in 
this  time,  the  critical  epoch-making  periods  fore- 
ordained of  God  {Kaipol  irpoTerayfjuivoLi  Acts  vii.  26), 
when  all  which  has  been  slowly,  and  often  un- 
markedly,  ripening  through  long  ages,  is  mature 
and  comes  to  the  birth  in  grand  decisive  events, 
which  constitute  at  once  the  close  of  one  period  and 
the  commencement  of  another ;  such,  for  example, 
was  the  recognition  of  Christianity  as  the  religion 
of  the  Roman  Empire  ;  such  the  conversion  of  the 
Germanic  tribes  settled  within  the  limits  of  the 
Empire  ;  such  the  great  revival  which  went  along 
with  the  first  institution  of  the  Mendicant  Orders  ; 
such,  by  still  better  right,  the  Reformation ;  such, 
above  all,  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord  (Dan.  vii. 
22). 

It  would  seem  as  if  the  Latin  had  no  word  by 
which  exactly  to  render  KaipoL  Augustine  com- 
plains of  this  {Ep.  cxcvii.  2) :  '  Greece  legitur 
Xpovov^  i)  Katpov<;.  Nostri  autem  utrumque  hoc 
verbum    tempera    appellant,    sive    xp6vov<;y    sive 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  33 

Kaipov^y  cum  liabeant  lisec  duo  inter  se  non  negli* 
gendam  differentiam ;  Kaipov^  quippe  appellant 
Greece  tempora  qusedam,  non  tamen  quae  in  spa- 
tiorum  voluniinibus  transeunt,  sed  quae  in  rebus  ad 
aliquid  opportunis  vel  importunis  sentiuntur,  sicut 
messis,  vindemia,  calor,  frigus,  pax,  belluna,  et  si 
qua  similia:  xp^^^^^  autem  ipsa  spatia  temporum 
vocant.'  Bearing  out  this  complaint  of  bis,  we  find 
in  tbe  Yulgate  the  most  various  renderings  of 
Katpoi,  as  often  as  it  occurs  in  combination  witli 
XpovoLy  and  cannot  therefore  be  rendered  by  '  tem- 
pora,' which  %/36i^o^  has  generally  preoccupied.' 
Thus  '  tempora  et  momenta '  (Acts  i.  7 ;  1  Thess. 
V.  1), '  tempora  et  setates '  (Dan.  ii.  21),  '  tempora 
et  ssecula '  (Wisd.  viii.  8) ;  while  a  modern  Latin 
commentator  on  the  ]!^.  T.  has  *  tempora  et  articuli ;' 
Bengel,  '  intervalla  et  tempora.'  It  might  be  urged 
that  '  tempora  et  opportunitates '  would  fulfil  all 
conditions.  This,  however,  is  not  so.  Augustine 
has  anticipated  this  suggestion,  but  only  to  acknow- 
ledge its  insufficiency,  on  the  ground  that  '  oppor- 
tunitas '  (=  '  opportunum  tempus ')  is  a  convenient^ 
favourable  season,  evKaipia ;  while  the  Kaip6<i  may 
be  the  most  inconvenient,  most  unfavourable  of  all, 
the  essential  notion  of  it  being  that  it  is  the  critical 

^  Yet  not  perhaps  very  correctly,  for  in  the  common  Latin  phrase 
*  dies  tempusque,'  it  is  dies  which  answers  to  xp°v°^^  *^^  tempus  to 
Kaip6s ;  see  Doderlein,  Lat.  Syn,  iv.  267. 
2* 


34  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

nick  of  time ;  but  whether,  as  such,  to  make  or  to 
mar,  effectually  to  help  or  effectually  to  hinder,  the 
word  determines  not  at  all  ('sive  opportuna,  sive 
importuna  sint  tempora,  Kaipoi  dicuntur'). 


§  viii. — <^e/3Ct),  cj)op6co. 

On  the  distinction  between  these  words  Lobeck 
{Phrynichus^  p.  585)  has  the  following  remarks : 
'Inter  ^epw  et  i^opeo)  hoc  interesse  constat,  quod 
illud  actionem  simplicem  et  transitoriam,  hoc  autem 
actionis  ejusdem  continuationem  significat;  yerbi 
causa  ayyeKiTjv  cj^ipecv,  est  alicujus  rei  nuncium 
afferre,  Herod,  iii.  53  et  122;  v.  14;  ayyeXirjv 
^opieiv,  iii.  34,  nuncii  munere  apud  aliquem  fungi. 
Hinc  et  (f)ope2v  dicimur  ea  quae  nobiscum  circum- 
ferimus,  quibus  amicti  indutique  sumus,  ut  Ifjidriov, 
TpL^wvLov,  Ba/crvXiov  (l)op6cv,  tum  quae  ad  habitum 
corporis  pertinent.'  He  proceeds,  however,  to  ac- 
knowledge that  this  is  a  rule  by  no  means  con- 
stantly observed  even  by  the  best  Greek  authors. 
It  is,  therefore,  the  more  noticeable,  as  an  example 
of  the  accuracy  which  so  often  takes  us  by  surprise 
in  the  use  of  words  by  the  writers  of  the  IST.  T.,  that 
this  rule  is  there  exactly  observed.  The  only  places 
where  (jyopelv  occurs  are  the  following,  Matt.  xi.  8 ; 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  35 

Jolin  xix.  5 ;  Eom.  xiii.  4 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  49,  lis;  Jam. 

ii.  3 ;  and  in  all  tliese  it  expresses,  not  an  accidental 
and  temporary,  but  a  regular  and  continuous  bear- 
ing. '  Sic  enim  differt  <f)opelv  a  (pepeiv  ut  hoc  sit 
ferre,  illud  ferre  solere '  (Fritzscbe  on  Matt.  xi.  8). 
Cf.  Prov.  iii.  16,  where  of  the  heavenly  Wisdom  it 
is  said,  vofiov  he  /cal  eXeov  eirl  jXdt)(T(Tr}<;  ^opel — she 
bears  these  on  her  tongue,  and  bears  them  ever- 
more. 

A  sentence  in  Plutarch  {Ajpoth,  Heg.)^  in  which 
both  words  occur,  illustrates  very  well  their  differ- 
ent uses :  of  Xerxes  he  records,  opjicrOeU  Be  Ba/Sv- 
\a)vioi<i  aTTOcrrdac,  koX  Kpari^cra^,  irpoaeTa^ev  oifka 
fir]  (j)6pecv,  aWa  '\jrdWecv  koI  axiketv  koI  Tropvo/So- 
(TKelv KoX KairrfKevetVy  koX  cj^opelv  koXttcotov'; ')(CTCova<;» 
Arms  would  only  be  borne  at  intervals,  therefore 
^ipecv ;  but  garments  are  habitually  worn,  therefore 
this  is  in  the  second  clause  exchanged  for  <f)opelv. 


ix. — Koo-fio'ii  alcov. 


The  first  of  these  words  our  Translators  have,  I 
believe,  always  rendered  '  world ; '  and  the  second 
often,  though  by  no  means  exclusively,  so ;  thus 
(not  to  speak  of  ek  alcova)  see  Ephes.  ii.  2,  7 ;  Col. 
i.  26.    It  is  certainly  a  question  whether  we  might 


36  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

not  have  made  more  use  of  '  age '  in  our  Yersion : 
we  have  employed  it  but  rarely, — only,  indeed,  in 
tLe  two  j)laces  which  I  have  cited  last.  '  Age '  may 
sound  to  us  inadequate  now  ;  but  it  is  quite  possi- 
ble that,  so  used,  it  would  little  by  little  have  ex- 
panded and  acquired  a  larger,  deeper  meaning  than 
it  now  possesses.  One  cannot  but  regret  that  by 
this  or  some  other  like  device,  our  Translators  did 
not  mark  the  difference  between  words  conveying, 
to  a  considerable  extent,  different  ideas;  Koaixo^ 
being  the  world  contemplated  under  aspects  of 
space,  aloiv  under  aspects  of  time, — Koaixo'^  '  mun- 
dus,'  and  ala>v  '  seculum ; '  for  the  Latin,  like  the 
Greek,  has  two  words,  where  we  have,  or  have 
acted  as  though  we  had,  but  one.  In  all  those 
passages,  such  as  Matt.  xiii.  39 ;  1  Cor.  x.  11,  which 
speak  of  the  end  or  consummation  of  the  alwv  (there 
are  none  which  speak  of  the  end  of  the  Koa-fios;),  as 
in  others  which  speak  of  "  the  wisdom  of  this  world  " 
(1  Cor.  ii.  6),  "the  god  of  this  world"  {ih.  iv.  4), 
"  the  children  of  this  world  "  (Luke  xvi.  8),  it  must 
be  admitted  that  we  are  losers  by  the  course  which 
we  have  adopted. 

Kocr/xo9,  connected  with  KOfiecv,  '  com  ere,'  '  comp- 
tus,'  is  a  word  with  a  history  of  very  great  interest 
in  more  aspects  than  one.  Suidas  traces  four  suc- 
cessive significations  through  which  the  word  pass- 
ed :  a-yjiiaivei  he  6  Koa/xof;  riaaapa,  evirpiireiaVy  rohe 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  37 

TO  irav,  T7)v  TCL^LVj  TO  TfKrjOo^  irapa  Ty  Tpacjifj.  Hav- 
ing originallv  tlie  meaDing  of  '  ornament,'  ot  ,aining 
this  meaning  once  in  the  'N.  T.  (1  Pet.  iii  3;  cf. 
Ecclus.  xliii.  9),  from  this  it  passed  to  that  of 
'  order,'  '  arrangement,'  ('  lucidus  ordo ')  ^  beauty,' 
as  springing  out  of  these ;  evirpeireLa  and  Td^i<;,  as 
Suidas  gives  it  above,  or  as  Hesychius,  KaXKwTrc- 
(Tfio^;,  KaTao'Kevrjy  rafts",  KaTd(TTaai<;,  koXKoz.  Pytha- 
goras is  said  to  have  been  the  first  who  t/ansferred 
and  applied  the  word  to  the  sum  total  of  the  mate- 
rial universe,  desiring  thereby  to  express  his  sense 
of  the  beauty  and  order  which  everywhere  reigned 
in  it ;  see  Plutarch,  De  Plac.  Phil.  i.  5  ;  and  for  a 
history  of  this  transfer,  a  note  in  Humboldt's  Cos- 
mos. '  Mundus  '  in  Latin, — '  digestio  et  ordinatio 
singularum  quarumque  rerum  formatarum  et  dis- 
tinctarum,'  Augustine  {De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  c.  3)  calls 
it, — followed,  as  is  familiar  to  all,  in  the  same  track ; 
giving  occasion  to  plays  of  words,  such  as  '  0  munde 
immunde,'  in  which  the  same  great  Church  teacher 
delights.  Thus  Pliny  {H.  N.  ii.  3) :  '  Quem  Koaixov 
Grseci  nomine  ornamenti  appellaverunt,  eum  nos  a 
perfecta  absolutaque  elegantia  mundum ; '  cf.  Cicero, 
Pe  JSfat.  Peor.  ii.  22.  From  this  signification  of 
KocTfio^  as  the  material  world,  which  is  not  uncom- 
mon in  Scripture  (Matt.  xiii.  35 ;  John  xxi.  25  ; 
Pom.  i.  20),  followed  that  of  /cocryLto?  as  the  sum 
total  of  the  men  living  in  the  world  (John  i.  29  • 


38  STNONTMS   OF  THE 

iv.  42 ;  2  Cor.  v.  19),  and  then  upon  this,  and 
ethically,  those  not  of  the  iKKXrjala,^  the  alienated 
from  the  life  of  God  (John  i.  10  ;  1  Cor.  i.  20,  21 ; 
Jam.  iv.  4 ;  1  John  iii.  13).  On  this  threefold  use 
of  Koa-fjuo^,  and  the  serious  confusions  which,  if  not 
carefully  watched  against,  may  arise  therefrom,  see 
Augustine,  Con.  Jul.  Pel.  vi.  §  3,  4. 

But  aloiv,  connected  with  ael,  though  scarcely 
alev  o!)v  (Aristotle),  has  in  like  manner  a  primary, 
and  then,  superinduced  on  this,  a  secondary  and 
ethical,  sense.  In  its  primary,  it  signifies  time, 
short  or  long,  in  its  unbroken  duration ;  oftentimes 
in  classical  Greek  the  duration  of  a  human  life 
(=  /8/o9,  for  which  it  is  exchanged,  Xenophon, 
Cyroj^.  iii.  3.  24) ;  but  essentially  time  as  the  con- 
dition under  which  all  created  things  exist,  and  the 
measure  of  their  existence.  Thus  Tlieodoret :  o  alijuv 
ovK  ovala  tc<;  icTTLV,  aX)C  avvirocTTaTov  ')(^pr]/jLa,  o-vfju- 
irapofJbapTOvv  rot?  >yevvT]T7)v  e^ovat  (pvacv.  KoXelrat 
fyap  aloDV  kol  to  airo  ti]'^  tov  k6(7/jlov  avo-Taaeo)^  H'^XP^ 
Trj<;  (7vvT6\€la<^  Std(TTr}/j,a. — aloov  tolvvv  eVrl  to  ry 
KTcarrj  (pvaeo  Trape^evyfJLevov  BcdcrTTj/jLa.  But  thus 
Bignifying  time,  it  comes  presently  to  signify  all 
which  exists  in  the  world  under  conditions  of  time ; 
'  die  Totalitat  desjenigen,  was  sich  in  derDauer  der 

^  Origen  indeed  (i/i  Joan.  vi.  38)  mentions  some  one  in  his  day  who 
interpreted  Koafxos  as  the  Church,  being  as  it  is  the  ornament  of  the 
world  {k6<t(jlos  oZaa  tov  Koafiov). 


^TEW  TESTAMENT.  39 

Zeit  ausserlicli  darstellt,  die  "Welt,  so  fern  sie  sicli  in 
der  Zeit  bewegt '  (Bleek) ;  and  then,  more  etliicallj, 
the  course  and  current  of  this  world's  affairs.  This 
course  and  current  being  full  of  sin,  it  is  nothing 
wonderful  that  aloov  ovto<;,  like  koo-^o^,  acquires 
presently  in  Scripture  an  evil  significance ;  the 
jSaaiXeiat  rod  koct/jlov  of  Matt.  iv.  8  are  ^aa-tXeiaL 
Tov  alojvo^  TovTov  in  Ignatius  {£Jp.  ad  Bora.  6) ;  God 
has  delivered  us  by  his  Son  ef  ive<rT(OTo^  al(ovo<i 
TTOvTjpov  (Gal.  i.  4);  Satan _is  6eo<;  tov  alcovo^  rovrov 
(2  Cor.  iv.  4) ;  cf.  Ignatius,  ^p.  ad  Magn.  1 :  o 
apypiv  TOV  alcovo^  tovtov)  ;  sinners  walk  KaTa  tov 
alojva  tov  koct^ov  tovtov,  too  weakly  translated  in 
our  Yersion,  as  in  all  preceding,  "  the  course  of  this 
world  "  (Ephes.  ii.  2).  The  last  is  a  specially  in- 
structive passage,  seeing  that  in  it  both  the  words 
which  we  are  discriminating  occui'  together ;  Bengel 
excellently  remarking,  '  aloav  et  koctixo^  differunt. 
lUe  hunc  regit  et  quasi  informat :  Kb(nxo<i  est  quid- 
dam  exterius,  aloav  subtilius.  Temp  us  [=  al6iv\ 
dicitur  non  solum  physice,  sed  etiam  moraliter,  con- 
notata  qualitate  hominum  in  eo  viventium ;  et  sic 
aldiv  dicit  longam  temporum  seriem,  ubi  setas  mala 
malam  setatem  excipit.'  Compare  Windischmann 
(on  Gal.  i.  4) :  '  alwv  darf  aber  durchaus  nicht  bloss 
als  Zeit  gefasst  werden,  sondern  begreift  alles  in  der 
Zeit  befangene ;  die  Welt  und  ihre  HeiTlichkeit,  die 
Menschen  und  ihr  naturliuhes  unerlostes  Thun  und 


4:0  SYNO^TTMS    OF   THE 

Treiben  in  sich,  im  Contraste  zu  dem  liier  nur  be- 
ginnenden,  seiner  Selinsuclit  nnd  Yollendung  nach 
aber  jenseitigen  imd  ewigen,  Reiclie  des  Messias.' 
We  speak  of  '  the  times,'  attaching  to  the  word  an 
ethical  signification ;  or,  still  more  to  the  point, 
'  the  age,'  '  the  spirit  or  genius  of  the  age,'  '  der 
Zeitgeist.'  All  that  floating  mass  of  thoughts,  opin- 
ions, maxims,  speculatioDs,  hopes,  imjDulses,  aims, 
at  any  time  current  in  the  world,  which  it  is  im- 
possible to  seize  and  accurately  define,  but  which 
constitute  a  most  real  and  effective  power,  being 
the  moral,  or  immoral,  atmosphere  which  at  every 
moment  of  our  lives  we  inhale,  again  inevitably  to 
exhale, — all  this  is  included  in  the  alcov,  which  is,  as 
Eengel  expressed  it,  the  subtle,  informing  spirit  of 
the  KocTfjbo^,  or  world  of  men  who  are  living  alienated 
and  apart  from  God.  '  Seculum,'  in  Latin,  has 
acquired  the  same  sense,  as  in  that  well-known 
phrase  of  Tacitus  (Germ.  19),  '  Corrumpere  et  cor- 
rumpi  seculum  vocatur.' 

While  it  is  thus  with  alwv  in  all  the  other  pas- 
sages where  it  occurs  in  the  JST.  T.,  it  must  be  freely 
admitted  that  there  are  two  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  which  constitute  exceptions  to  the  expla- 
nation here  given,  and  to  the  distinction  here  drawn 
between  it  and  /coa/io?,  namely  i.  2  and  xi.  8.  In 
both  of  these  alo)ve^  are  the  worlds  contemplated,  if 
not  entirely,  yet  beyond  question  mainly,  under 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  41 

otter  aspects  than  those  of  time.  Some,  indeed, 
especially  modern  Socinian  expositors,  though  not 
without  forerunners  who  had  no  such  motives  as 
theirs,  have  attempted  to  explain  atwi/e?  in  the  first 
of  these  passages,  as  the  successive  dispensations,  the 
Xpovoc  Koi  Kaipoi  of  the  divine  economy.  But  what- 
ever doubt  might  have  existed,  had  this  verse  stood 
alone,  the  parallel  xi.  3  is  decisive,  that  the  atwre? 
can  only  be,  as  w^e  have  rendered  the  word,  '  the 
worlds,'  and  not  '  the  ages.'  I  have  said  these  two 
are  the  only  exceptions,  for  I  cannot  accept  1  Tim. 
i.  17  as  a  third ;  where  aiwve^  seems  to  denote,  not 
'  the  worlds '  in  the  usual  concrete  meaning  of  the 
term,  but,  according  to  the  more  usual  temporal 
meaning  of  amv  in  the  JST.  T.,  '  the  ages,'  the  tem- 
poral periods  whose  sum  and  aggregation  adumbrate 
the  conception  of  eternity.  The  I3aac\6v<s  twv  alcovcou 
will  thus  be  the  sovereign  dispenser  and  disposer  of 
the  ages  of  the  world  (see  Ellicott,  in  loco).'' 

*  Our  English  '  world,'  as  far  as  the  etymology  goes,  more  nearly 
represents  at&)y  than  koc/jlos.  The  old  '  weralt,'  or  '  weralti'  (in  modern 
German  *  welt '),  is  composed  of  two  words,  '  wer,'  man,  and  '  alti, 
age  or  generation.  The  ground-meaning,  therefore,  of  '  weralt '  is 
generation  of  men.  Out  of  this  expression  of  time  unfolds  itself  that 
of  space,  as  al(av  passed  into  the  meaning  of  Koafios  (Grimm,  Deutsche 
Myth.  p.  752) ;  but  in  the  earliest  German  records  it  is  used,  first  aa 
an  expression  of  time,  and  only  derivatively  as  one  of  space.  See 
Rudolf  von  Kaumer,  Die  Einwirkung  des  Christenthums  an/die  Alt 
hochdeutsche  Sprache,  1845,  p.  376. 


42  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 


§  X. — veo<;,  KaLVo<;, 

We  translate  botli  tliese  words  by  the  one  Eng- 
lish word  '  neWj'  and  there  are  those  who  deny  that 
any  difference  can  in  the  ISTew  Testament  be  traced 
between  them.  They  derive  a  certain  plausible 
sujDport  for  this  assertion  from  the  fact  that  mani- 
festly veo<;  and  Kaivo^  oftentimes  are  interchange- 
ably used  ;  thus  veo^  av9pco7ro<;  (Col.  iii.  10),  '  the 
new  man,'  and  Kaivo^  dv6p(07ro<;  (Eph.  ii.  15),  '  the 
new  man '  also ;  via  Bca67]K7j  (Heb.  xii.  24)  and 
KacvT)  haOrjKT]  (Heb.  ix.  15),  both  '  a  new  cove- 
nant ; '  veo<^  olvo<i  (Matt.  ix.  lY)  and  Kacvo^  olvo^ 
(Matt.  xxvi.  29).  The  words,  it  is  m^ged,  are  evi- 
dently of  the  same  force  and  significance.  But  this 
does  not  follow,  and  in  fact  is  not  so.  The  same 
covenant  may  be  qualified  as  vea  or  Kaivri,  but  it  is 
contemplated  from  a  different  point  of  view,  accord- 
ing as  it  has  one  epithet  applied  to  it  or  the  other. 
It  is  the  same  in  the  other  instances  adduced :  the 
same  man,  or  the  same  wine,  may  be  veo^  or  Kaiv6<; ; 
but  a  different  notion  is  predominant  according  as 
the  one  epithet  is  applied  or  the  other,  and  it  will 
not  be  hard  presently  to  demonstrate  as  much. 

Contemplate  the  new  under  the  asj)ects  of  time^ 
as  that  which  has  more  recently  come  into  exist- 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  43 

ence,  and  this  is  veo<;  (see  Pott,  Etymol.  Forsch, 
2d  ed.  vol.  i.  p.  290—292).  Thus  tlie  young  are 
continually  ol  vkoi,  or  ol  vecoTepoc,  tlie  generation 
which  has  lately  sprung  up ;  so,  too,  veoi  Oeol,  the 
younger  race  of  gods,  Jupiter,  Apollo,  and  other 
Olympians  (JEschylus,  Prom.  Vinct,  991,  996),  as 
set  over  against  Saturn,  Ops,  and  the  dynasty  of 
elder  deities  whom  they  had  dethroned.  But  con- 
template the  new,  not  under  the  aspect  of  time^  but 
of  qiiality^  the  new,  as  set  over  against  that  which 
has  seen  service,  the  outworn,  the  exhausted  or 
marred  through  age,  and  this  is  Kaivb<^ :  thus  Kaivov 
l/jbdrcov  (Luke  v.  36),  '  a  new  garment,'  as  contrasted 
with  one  threadbare  and  outworn ;  Kaivol  dcrKoiy 
*  new  wine-skins  '  (Matt.  ix.  17 ;  John  ix.  19) ;  and 
in  this  sense,  /catvo^  ovpavo^  (2  Pet.  iii.  13),  '  a  new 
heaven,'  as  set  over  against  that  which  has  waxen 
old,  and  shows  signs  of  decay  and  dissolution  (Heb. 
i.  11,  12).  In  like  manner,  Kalvav  jXcoacraL  (Mark 
xvi.  IT)  does  not  express  the  recent  commencement 
of  this  miraculous  speaking  with  tongues,  but  the 
unlikeness  of  these  tongues  to  any  that  went  before, 
therefore  called  also  erepao  yXcoacrat,  (Acts  ii.  4), 
tongues  different  from  any  hitherto  known.  Thus 
also,  that  Kaivov  /jLvrjfjielov,  in  which  Joseph  of 
Arimathea  laid  the  body  of  our  Lord  (Matt,  xxvii. 
60),  is  not  one  lately  hewn  from  the  rock,  but  one 
which  had  never  yet  been  used,  in  which  no  other 


44  STKONYMS   OF  THE 

dead  had  ever  lain,  making  the  place  ceremonially 
unclean  (Matt,  xxiii.  27).  It  might  have  been 
hewn  out  a  hundred  years  before,  and  would  thus 
have  forfeited  its  right  to  the  epithet  veo^,  but  if 
never  turned  to  use  before  it  w^ould  be  KaLv6<;  still. 
That  it  should  be  so  was  part  of  that  divine  decorum 
which  ever  attended  the  Lord  in  the  midst  of  the 
humiliations  of  His  earthly  life  (cf.  Luke  xix.  30 ; 
1  Sam.  vi.  7  ;  2  Kin.  ii.  20). 

It  will  be  seen  from  what  has  been  said  that 
Kaivo^  will  often,  as  a  secondary  notion,  imply 
praise,  for  the  new  is  commonly  better  than  the 
old ;  thus,  everything  is  new  in  heaven,  "  the  new 
Jerusalem  "  (Kev.  iii.  12) ;  "  a  new  song  "  (v.  9) ; 
"a  new  heaven  and  new  earth"  (xxi.  1,  cf.  2  Pet. 
iii.  13) ;  "  all  things  new  "  (xxi.  5).  But  this  not 
of  necessity;  for  it  is  not  always,  and  in  every- 
thing, that  the  new  is  better,  but  sometimes  the 
old ;  thus,  the  old  friend  (Ecclus.  ix.  10),  and  the 
old  wine  (Luke  v.  39),  are  better  than  the  new. 
And  in  many  other  cases  Kaivo'i  may  express  only 
the  novel  and  strange,  as  contrasted,  and  that  un- 
favourably, with  the  known  and  the  familiar.  Thus 
I  observed  just  now  that  vkoi  Qkoi  was  a  title  given 
to  the  younger  generation  of  gods ;  but  wdien  it 
was  brought  as  a  charge  against  Socrates  that  ho 
had  sought  to  introduce  tcaivov^  Oeov?,  or  Kaiva  EaL- 
fjLovia  into  Athens  (Plato,  Apol.  26  5,  cf.  ^iva  Sat- 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  45 

fiovia,  Acts  xvii.  18),  something  quite  different 
from  this  was  meant — a  novel  pantheon,  such  gods 
as  Athens  had  not  hitherto  been  accustomed  to 
worship.  So,  too,  they  who  exclaim  of  Christ's 
teaching,  "  What  new  doctrine  iKaivrj  ScBaxn]  is 
this  ? "  mean  anything  but  praise  (Mark  i.  2Y). 

Follow  up  these  words  into  their  derivatives  and 
compounds,  and  it  will  be  found  that  the  same  dis- 
tinction comes  yet  more  clearly  out:  thus,  ve6T7]<; 
(1  Tim.  iv.  12)  is  youth ;  Kacv6T7j<;  (Kom.  vi.  4)  is 
newness ;  reoetS?;?,  of  youthful  appearance ;  /cat- 
vo6iB7]<;,  of  novel  unusual  appearance ;  vedkoyla  (if 
there  had  existed  such  a  word)  would  have  been,  a 
younger  growth  of  words  as  contrasted  with  the  old 
stock  of  the  language,  or,  as  we  say,  ^  neologies  ; ' 
KacvoXoyla,  which  does  exist  in  the  later  Greek,  a 
novel  anomalous  invention  of  words,  constructed  on 
different  principles  from  those  which  the  language 
had  recognized  hitherto ;  (pcXoveo^,  a  lover  of  youth 
(Lucian,  Amor.  24) ;  ^CkoKaivo^,  a  lover  of  novelty 
(Plutarch,  De  Mus.  12). 

There  is  a  passage  in  Polybius  (v.  76,  4),  as 
there  are  many  elsewhere  (Clement  of  Alexandria, 
JPcedag.  i.  5,  will  supply  one),  in  which  the  words 
occur  together;  but  neither  in  this  are  they  em- 
ployed as  a  mere  rhetorical  accumulation  :  each  has 
its  own  special  significance.  Kelating  a  stratagem 
by  which  the  town  of  Selge  was  very  nearly  sur- 


4:6  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

prised  and  taken,  Polybius  makes  this  observation, 
that,  notwithstanding  the  many  cities  which  have 
evidently  been  lost  through  the  same  device,  we 
are,  some  way  or  other,  still  new  and  young  in 
regard  of  similar  deceits  {jcaivoC  nve^  alel  koX  vioo 
7r/?o9  ra?  Toiavra^  uTrdra^  Tre^vKajjiev),  and  ready 
to  be  deceived  by  them  over  again.  Here  KaivoC  is 
an  epithet  applied  to  men  in  respect  to  their  raw- 
ness and  inexperience,  veoi  in  respect  to  their  youth. 
It  is  true  that  these  two,  inexperience  and  youth, 
go  often  together ;  thus  z^eo?  and  aireipos  are  joined 
by  Plutarch  (De  Bed.  Bat.  And.  17) ;  but  this  is 
not  of  necessity.  An  old  man  may  be  raw  and 
unpractised  in  the  affairs  of  the  world,  therefore 
Kacv6<i :  there  have  been  many  young  men,  vioc  as 
regarded  age,  who  were  well  skilled  and  exercised 
in  these. 

Apply  the  distinction  here  drawn,  and  it  will 
be  manifest  that  the  same  wine,  or  the  same  man, 
may  be  at  once  vio^  and  Kaivosy  and  yet  different 
meanings  may  be,  and  may  have  been  intended  to 
be,  conveyed,  as  the  one  word  was  used,  or  the 
other.  Take  for  example  the  veo^  dv9pco7ro<;  of 
Col.  iii.  10,  and  the  Kaivo^;  dvOpcoTro^  of  Ephes. 
ii.  15.  Contemplate  under  the  aspect  of  time  that 
mighty  change  which  has  found  and  is  finding 
place  in  the  man  who  has  become  obedient  to  the 
truth,  and  yon  w^ll  call  him  subsequently  to  this 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  4.7 

change,  vio<;  avdpcoiro^ :  tlie  old  man  in  him,  and  it 
well  deserves  tliis  name,  for  it  dates  as  far  back  as 
Adam,  has  died ;  a  new  man  has  been  born,  who 
therefore  is  filly  called  veo^.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  contemplate,  not  now  under  aspects  of  time, 
but  of  quality  and  condition,  this  same  mighty 
transformation ;  behold  the  man  who,  through  long 
contact  with  the  world,  inveterate  habits  of  sinning, 
had  grown  outworn  and  old,  casting  off  the  old  con- 
versation, as  the  snake  its  shrivelled  skin,  coming 
forth  again  a  new  creation  {Kaivrj  /crt'crt?),  from  his 
heavenly  Maker's  hands,  with  a  Trvev/jua  Kaivov  given 
to  him  (Ezek.  xi.  18),  and  you  have  here  the  Kaivov 
avdpcoTTo^;,  one  prepared  to  walk  in  newness  of 
life  (eV  KaivoTTjTL  fo)?)?,  Eom.  vi.  4)  through  the 
avaKalvwai^  of  the  Spirit  (Tit.  iii.  5) ;  compare  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas,  16,  e'yevojjbeOa  Katvol,  iraKiv  ef 
apxri'i  KTi^ofievoL.  Often  as  the  words  in  this  appli- 
cation would  be  interchangeable,  yet  there  are  also 
times  when  they  would  not  be  so.  Take  for  in- 
stance the  saying  of  Clement  of  Alexandi'ia  {Feed. 
i.  6),  XPV  y^P  ^^^'^^  Kaivovs  Aoyov  Kaivov  fieTeiXr](f)6- 
ra^.  How  impossible  it  would  be  to  substitute 
viov<;  or  viov  here.  Take,  again,  the  verbs  avaveovv 
(Ephes.  iv.  23),  and  dvaKaLvovv  (Col.  iv.  10).  We 
have  need  dvaveova-dac,  and  we  have  need  dvaKav- 
vovaOaL.  It  is  indeed  the  same  mysterious  process, 
to  be  brought  about  by  the  same  almighty  Agent ; 


4:8  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

but  it  is  the  same  regarded  from  different  points  of 
view ;  dvaveovcrdat,  to  be  made  young  again,  ava- 
KaivovaOaiy  to  be  made  neio  again. 

Apply  this  in  the  other  instances  quoted  above. 
!N'ew  wine  may  be  characterized  as  z^eo?  or  /fatz/09, 
but  from  different  points  of  view.  As  it  is  z^eo?,  it ' 
is  tacitly  contrasted  with  the  vintage  of  past  years ; 
as  it  is  Kaivo^,  we  may  assume  it  austere  and  strong, 
in  contrast  with  that  which  is  ^/JTyo-To?,  sweet  and 
mellow  through  age  (Luke  v.  39).  So  too,  the 
Covenant  of  which  Christ  is  the  Mediator  is  a 
Bca67]Krj  via,  as  compared  with  the  Mosaic  covenant, 
given  nearly  two  thousand  years  before;  it  is  a 
^LaOrjKT]  Kaivr]  as  compared  with  the  same,  effete 
with  age,  and  from  which  all  vigour,  energy,  and 
strength  had  departed  (Heb.  viii.  13). 

A  Latin  grammarian,  drawing  the  distinction 
between  ^  recens  '  and  '  novus,'  has  said,  '  Kecens  ad 
temjpus^  novum  ad  rem  refertur.'  Substituting  z^eo? 
and  Kaivo^y  we  might  say,  *  vko^  ad  temjpus^  Kaivo^  ad 
rem  refertur,'  and  should  thus  grasp  in  a  few  words, 
easily  remembered,  the  distinction  between  them  at 
its  central  point.' 

*  Lafage  {Diet,  des  Synonxjmes,  p.  798)  claims  the  same  distinc- 
tion for  'nouveau'  (=  yeoj),  and  'neuf  (=  Kaiv6i).  *  Ce  qui  est 
noimau  vient  de  paraitre  pour  la  premiere  fois  :  ce  qui  est  nenf  rlent 
d'etre  fait  et  n'a  pas  encore  scrvi.  Une  invention  est  ru)uvelle,  une 
expression  neuve.^ 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  49 


§  xi. — iJLeOif},  iroTO^;,  olvo(jjikvy{a,  k(o^o<^,  KpacTraXr), 

Midr],  occurring  in  the  N".  T.  at  Luke  xxi.  34 ; 
Rom.  xiii.  13 ;  Gal.  v.  21 ;  and  7r6To<;,  found  only  at 
1  Pet.  iv.  3,  are  distinguishable  as  an  abstract  and 
a  concrete.  MiOrj,  defined  by  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, aKpdrov  %p?}crt9  acpoSporepa,  is  drunkenness 
(Joel  i.  5 ;  Ezek.  xxxix.  19) ;  7r6To<;  {=  evcoxia 
Hesycbius,  cf.  Polybius,  ii.  4.  6),  the  drinking  bout, 
the  symposium,  not  of  necessity  excessive  (Gen. 
xix.  3 ;  2  Sam.  iii.  20),  which  gives  opportunity  for 
this  (1  Sam.  xxv.  36 ;  Xenophon,  A^iah.  vii.  3,  13  ; 
iirel  Trpovx'^pei'  o  ttoto?).  Midrj  is  stronger  and 
expresses  a  worse  excess  than  olvcoai^iy  from  which 
it  is  distinguished  by  Plutarch,  De  Garr.  4 ;  Sym^. 
iii.  1. 

The  next  word  in  this  group,  olvocjAvyLa,  occurs 
only  1  Pet.  iv.  3,  where  we  translate  it  "  excess  of 
wine,"  and  never  in  the  Septuagint ;  but  olvojiku- 
tyeiv,  Deut.  xxi.  20;  Isai.  Ivi.  12.  It  is  certainly 
a  step  in  advance  of  /^e^?/,  see  Philo  Be  Ehriet.  8  ; 
and  De  Merc.  Mer.  1,  where  he  names  oLvo(j>\vyLa 
among  the  vPpeh  e(T')(aTaL,  and  compare  Xenophon 
(CEcon.  i.  22) ;  BovXoc  X^'xyeicav,  XayvetcJov,  OLVo<p\ih 
ryt&v.  In  strict  definition  it  is  eTnOvfjLla  oxvov  clttXt}- 
a-To^  (Andronicus  of  Phodes),  d'7r\rjp(OTo<s  iircOviMta, 
3 


60  SYNONYMS  OF  THE 

as  Pliilo  ( Vit.  Mos.  iii.  22)  calls  it ;  the  GermaD 
^Trinksnclit ; '  but  we  find  it  commonly  used  for  a 
debauch.  I  know  no  single  word  which  would  bet- 
ter render  it,  being  as  it  is  an  extravagant  indulgence 
in  potations  long  drawn  out  (see  Basil,  JI0771.  in 
£^briosos,  7),  such  as  may  induce  permanent  mis- 
chiefs on  the  body  (Aristotle,  M/i.  JVic.  iii.  5.  15) ; 
as  did  for  instance  that  fatal  one  to  which  Arrian, 
according  to  one  report  current  in  antiquity,  in- 
clines to  ascribe  the  death  of  Alexander  the  Great 
(vii.  24.  25). 

Kw/i09  (used  in  the  plural  on  the  three  occasions 
when  it  is  found  in  the  JlST.  T.)  rendered  once  '  riot- 
ing' (Rom.  xiii.  13),  and  twice  '  revelling '  (Gal.  v. 
21 ;  1  Pet.  iv.  3),  may  be  said  to  unite  in  itself  both 
these  notions,  namely,  of  riot,  and  of  revelry.  It  is 
the  Latin  '  comissatio,'  which,  as  is  well  known,  is 
connected  with  Kcofjud^ecvy  not  with  '  comedo.'  Thus, 
Kcofio<;  Kol  aacoTia  (2  Mace.  vi.  4) ;  ttotol  koI  kcj/xol 
Kol  Odkiai  cLKaipoL  (Plutarch,  Pyrrh.  16 ;  ifjufiavec^ 
KcbfjLot  (Wisd.  xiv.  23);  cf.  Philo,  De  Cher.  27, 
where  we  have  a  striking  description  of  the  com- 
pany which  it  and  yukdr)  keep,  of  the  other  vices 
with  which  these  are  associated  the  most  nearly. 
At  the  same  time  /cwytto?  is  often  in  a  more  special 
sense  the  troop  of  di*unken  revellers  ('  comissantium 
agmen,'  Blomfield,  Agamemnon  1160,  where  the 
troop  of  Furies,  as  drunk  with  blood,  obtain  this 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  61 

name),  who  at  tlie  late  close  of  a  revel,  with  gar- 
lands on  their  heads,  and  torches  in  their  hands,^ 
with  shout  and  song^  (/cw/io?  koX  ^od,  Plntarch, 
Alexander,  38),  pass  to  the  harlots'  houses,  or  other- 
wise wander  through  the  streets,  with  insult  and 
wanton  outrage  for  any  whom  they  meet ;  cf. 
Meineke,  Fragm,  Com.  GrcBC.  p.  617.  It  is  evident 
that  Milton  had  the  km/jlo^  in  his  eye  in  those  lines 
of  his — 

*  when  night 
Darkens  the  streets,  then  wander  forth  the  sons 
Of  Belial,  Jloivn  with  insolence  and  wine.'' 

Plutarch  {Alex.  37)  characterized  as  a  Kwixoq  the 
mad  drunken  march  of  Alexander  and  his  army 
through  Carmania,  returning  from  their  Indian 
expedition. 

KpacTrdXrj,  the  Latin  'crapula,'  though  with  a 
more  limited  signification  (77  ')(6e(nvr]  fiidr),  Ammo- 
nius),  is  a  word  concerning  the  derivation  of  which 
nothing  certain  has  been  arrived  at.  We  have  ren- 
dered it  '  surfeiting '  at  Luke  xxi.  34,  being  the 
single  occasion  on  which  it  occurs  in  the  jN".  T.     In 

*  eoiK6  iir\  Ku/xou  ^aidi^eiy. 

(paiyerat. 
crrecpauSu  ye  rot  /col  Sa5'  ex«j/  iropeveTat. 

Aristoph.  Pint.  1040. 
'  Theophylact  makes  these  songs  themselves  the  ku/xoij  defining 
the  word  thus  :  rh  ixera  nfOrjs  /col  vfipecos  ^c/iora. 


52  SYNONYMS  OF  THE 

the  Septuagint  it  is  never  foimd,  but  the  verb 
KpanraXdcd  twice  (Ps.  Ixxvii.  65  ;  Isai.  xxix.  9). 
'  Fnlsomeness,'  in  the  early  sense  of  that  word  (see 
mj  Select  Glossary  of  English  Words,  s.  v.  '  ful- 
some '),  would  express  it  very  well,  with  only  the 
drawback  that  by  '  fulsomeness '  might  be  indicated 
the  disgust  and  loathing  from  overfulness  of  meat 
as  well  as  of  wine,  while  KpaiirdkT)  expresses  only 
the  latter ;  thus  Plutarch,  Prcec.  San.  11 :  irkTj- 
afjLovT)  rj  KpaLTToXr),  It  is,  as  Clement  of  Alexandria 
(P(2d.  ii.  2)  defines  it,  17  IttX  rfj  fJuiOrj  Bva-apeaTr](n<; 
KoX  arjUa :  and  with  it  this  series  of  words  may  fitly 
close. 


§  xii. — KaTTTJXevco,  Bdkoco, 

In  two  passages,  standing  very  near  to  one 
another  in  St.  Paul's  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corin 
thians,  he  avouches  of  himself  that  he  is  not  "  as 
many  who  corrupt  (KairifKevovT^^  the  word  of  God  " 
(ii.  17) ;  and  presently  again  he  disclaims  being  of 
them  who  can  be  accused  of  "  handling  the  word 
of  God  deceitfully  "  {BoXovvre^;,  iv.  2)  ;  these  being 
the  only  occasions  on  which  either  of  these  words 
is  employed  in  the  IST.  T.  It  is  evident,  not  less 
from  the  context  than  from  the  character  of  the 


NEW  TESTAMEKT.  63 

words  themselves,  that  the  notions  which  they  ex- 
press mnst  lie  very  near  to  one  another ;  oftentimes 
it  is  said  or  assumed  that  they  are  absolutely  iden- 
tical, as  by  all  translators  who  render  the  two  Greek 
words  in  the  same  way;  by  the  Yulgate,  for  in- 
stance, which  has  '  adulterantes '  in  both  places ;  by 
Chrysostom,  who  explains  Kairrfkeveiv  as  =  vodeveiv. 
But  I  am  persuaded  that,  on  nearer  inspection,  it 
will  be  found  that  while  KaTrrfkevovTe^i  covers  all  that 
Bo\ovjn-€<;  does,  it  also  covers  something  more,  and 
this,  whether  in  the  literal  sense,  or  transferred  figu- 
rative in  which  it  is  used  by  the  Apostle ;  even  as 
it  is  quite  plain  that  our  own  Translators,  whether 
with  any  very  clear  insight  into  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  words  or  not,  certainly  did  not  acquiesce 
in  the  obliteration  of  all  distinction  between  them. 

The  history  of  KaTrrjXeveiv  is  not  difficult  to 
trace.  The  KairrfKo'^  is  properly  the  huckster  or 
petty  trader,  as  set  over  against  the  €/jL7ropo<;  who 
sells  his  wares  not  in  retail  but  in  the  gross.  But 
while  the  word  may  be  applied  to  any  such  pedlar, 
the  KaTnjko^  is  predominantly  the  vendor  in  retail 
of  wine  (Plato,  Gorg.  518 ;  Lucian,  Hermot.  68). 
Exposed  to  many  and  strong  temptations,  into 
which  it  was  easy  for  them  to  fall  (Ecclus.  xxvi. 
29),  as  to  mix  their  wine  with  water  (Isai.  i.  22), 
or  otherwise  to  tamper  with  it,  to  sell  it  in  short 
measure,  these  men  so  generally  yielded  to  these 


64  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

temptationSj  that  KairrfKo^:  and  Kain^'Keveiv,  like 
'  caupo '  and  '  cauponarij'  became  words  of  con- 
tempt ;  Kairrjkeveiv  being  the  making  of  any  shame- 
ful traffic  and  gain  as  the  KonrrfKo^  does  (see  Becker, 
ChariTdes^  Leipzig,  1840,  p.  256).  But  it  will  at 
once  be  evident  that  the  BoXovv  is  only  one  part  of 
the  KairrfkeveiVy  namely,  the  tampering  with  or 
sophisticating  the  wine  by  the  admixture  of  alien 
matter,  and  does  not  suggest  the  fact  that  this  is 
done  with  the  purpose  of  making  a  disgraceful  gain 
thereby.  ]^ay,  it  might  be  ui'ged  that  it  only  ex- 
presses partially  the  tampering  itself,  as  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  Lncian  {Hermotimus,  69)  would 
seem  to  say  :  ol  <^Ck6ao(^oi  aTroBiBovraL  ra  fiaOrjixara 
ioairep  ol  KdirrfKoL,  KepaadfJLevoi  ye  ol  ttoWoI,  kol 
Bo\a)aavT6<;,  koX  KaKojjbeTpovvre^; :  for  here  the  hoXovv 
is  only  one  part  of  the  deceitful  handling  by  the 
Kairrfko^  of  the  wares  which  he  sells. 

But  whether  this  be  worth  m-ging  or  not,  it  is 
quite  certain  that,  while  in  the  one  word  there  is 
only  the  simple  falsifying,  there  is  in  the  other  the 
doing  of  this  with  the  intention  of  obtaining  shame- 
ful gain  thereby.  Surely  here  is  a  moment  in  the 
sin  of  the  false  teachers,  which  St.  Panl,  in  dis- 
claiming the  KaTnjXeveiv,  intended  to  disclaim  for 
himself.  He  does  in  as  many  words  most  earnestly 
disclaim  it  in  this  same  Epistle  (xii.  14 ;  cf.  Acts 
XX.  33),  and  this  the  more  earnestly,  seeing  that  it 


KEW  TESTAMENT.  55 

is  continually  noted  in  Scripture  as  a  mark  of  false 
propliets  and  false  apostles  (for  so  does  the  meanest 
cleave  to  tlie  highest,  and  untruthfulness  in  highest 
things  expose  to  lowest  temptations),  that  they, 
through  covetousness,  make  merchandise  of  souls 
thus  bv  St.  Paul  himself,  Tit.  i.  11 ;  Phil.  iii.  19 
cf.  2  Pet.  ii.  3,  14,  15  ;  Jude  11,  16  ;  Ezek.  xiii.  19 
and  see  Ignatius  (the  larger  recension),  where,  no 
doubt  with  a  reference  to  this  passage,  and  showing 
how  the  writer  understood  it,  the  false  teachers  are 
denounced  as  ^pT/yLtaroXatTuatTre?,  as  ^ptare/iTropot, 
Tov  ^Ir}(jovv  iTcoXovvrefi,  koI  KaTrrjXevovTe^;  tov  \6yov 
Tov  evayyeXlov.  Surely  we  have  here  a  difference 
which  it  is  quite  worth  our  while  not  to  pass  by 
unobserved.  The  Galatian  false  teachers  were  such 
as  undoubtedly  might  have  been  charged  as  BoXovv- 
re?  TOV  \6yovy  mingling,  as  they  did,  vain  human 
traditions  with  the  pure  word  of  the  Gospel ;  build- 
ing in  hay,  straw,  and  stubble  with  its  silver,  gold, 
and  precious  stones ;  but  there  is  nothing  which 
would  lead  us  to  charge  them  as  Kairrfkevovre^  tov 
\6yov  TOV  QeoVi  working  this  mischief  which  they 
did  work  for  filthy  lucre's  sake  (see  Deyling,  Ohss. 
Sae.  vol.  iv.  p.  636). 

I  cannot  forbear  quoting  here  a  remarkable 
extract  from  Bentley's  Sermon  on  Fojyery  ( Works, 
vol.  iii.  p.  212),  in  which  he  strongly  maintains  the 
distinction  which  1  have  endeavoured  to  trace: 


56  STN0KTM3  OF  THE 

*  Our  English  Translators  have  not  been  very  happy 
in  their  version  of  this  passage  [2  Cor.  ii.  17].  We 
are  not,  says  the  Apostle,  KairrfKevovre^  rbv  Xojov 
Tov  Qeov,  which  our  Translators  have  rendered, 
"we  do  not  corrupt"  or  (as  in  the  margin)  deal 
deceitfully  with  "  the  word  of  God."  They  were 
led  to  this  by  the  parallel  place,  c.  iv.  of  this  Epistle, 
ver.  2,  "  not  walking  in  craftiness,"  firjhe  ^oKovvre^ 
TOV  Xoyov  TOV  @6ov,  "  nor  handling  the  word  of  God 
deceitfully  ; "  they  took  KaTrrjXevovre^  and  So\ovvt€(; 
in  the  same  adequate  notion,  as  the  vulgar  Latin 
had  done  before  them,  which  expresses  both  by  the 
same  word,  adulterantes  verbum  Dei ;  and  so,  like- 
wise, Hesychius  makes  them  synonyms,  eKKairt]- 
\eveLv,  SoXovv.  AoXovv,  indeed,  is  fitly  rendered 
'  adulterare ; '  so  hdXovv  tov  ')(^pvaov,  tov  olvov,  to 
adulterate  gold  or  wine,  by  mixing  worse  ingre- 
dients w^ith  the  metal  or  liquor.  And  our  Trans- 
lators had  done  well  if  they  had  rendered  the  latter 
passage,  not  adulterating,  not  sophisticating  the 
word.  But  KaTrrjXevovre^  in  our  text  has  a  complex 
idea  and  a  wider  signification ;  KaTrrjXevecv  always 
comprehends  BoXovv;  but  BoXouv  never  extends  to 
KaTrrjXevetVy  which,  besides  the  sense  of  adulterating, 
has  an  additional  notion  of  unjust  lucre,  gain,  profit, 
advantage.  This  is  plain  from  the  word  Kd7njXo<i, 
a  calling  always  infamous  for  avarice  and  knavery  : 
"  perfidus  hie  caupo,"  says  the  poet,  as  a  general 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  57 

character.  Thence  KairrfKeveiv,  by  an  easy  and 
natural  metaphor,  was  diverted  to  other  expres- 
sions where  cheating  and  lucre  were  signified :  Ka- 
Trrfkeveiv  top  Xoyov,  says  the  Apostle  here,  and  the 
ancient  Greeks,  KairrfKeveiv  Ta<;  ZUa^t  rrjv  elp^vrjv, 
TTjv  (To<^laVj  ra  fiaOij/juara,  to  corrupt  and  sell  jus- 
tice,  to  barter  a  negociation  of  peace,  to  prostitute 
learning  and  philosophy  for  gain.  Cheating,  we 
see,  and  adulterating  is  part  of  the  notion  of  Kairr]' 
Xevecv,  but  the  principal  essential  of  it  is  sordid 
lucre.  So  '  cauponari '  in  the  famous  passage  of 
Ennius,  where  Pyri'hus  refuses  the  offer  of  a  ransom 
for  his  captives,  and  restores  them  gratis  : 

'  Non  mi  aurum  posco,  nee  mi  pretium  dederitis, 
Non  cauponanti  bellum,  sed  belligeranti.' 

And  so  the  Fathers  expound  this  place So 

that,  in  short,  what  St.  Paul  says,  KaTrrfKevovreg 
Tov  \6yov,  might  be  expressed  in  one  classic  word 
— Xoye/jLTropot,  or  Xoyoirpdrai,^  where  the  idea  of 
gain  and  profit  is  the  chief  part  of  the  signification. 
"Wherefore,  to  do  justice  to  our  text,  we  must  not 
stop  lamely  with  our  Translators,  "  corrupters  of 
the  word  of  God ; "  but  add  to  it  as  its  plenary 
notion,  "  corrupters  of  the  word  of  God  for  filthy 
lucre^ 

If  what  has  been  just  said  is  correct,  it  will 

*  So  KoyoirSiKoi  in  Philo,  Cong.  Erud,  Grat.  10. 


58  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

follow  that  ^  deceitfully  handling '  would  be  a  more 
accurate,  though  itself  not  a  perfectly  adequate, 
rendering  of  KairrfkevovTe^,  and  '  who  corrupt '  of 
BoXovvT€9y  than  the  converse  of  this  which  our 
Version  actually  offers. 


§  xiii. — ayad(0(TVV7j,  ')(P7)(tt6t7}<;. 

'Aya6co(7vV7j  is  one  of  the  words  with  which  re- 
vealed religion  has  enriched  the  Greek  language. 
It  occurs  no  where  else  but  in  the  Greek  transla- 
tions of  the  O.  T.  (N'ehem.  ix.  25  ;  2  Chron.  xiv. 
16),  in  the  N.  T.,  and  in  those  writings  which  are 
directly  dependent  upon  these.  The  grammarians, 
indeed,  at  no  time  acknowledged,  or  gave  to  it  or 
to  ayadoTTj^  the  stamp  of  allowance,  demanding 
that  XPV^'^^'^V^*  which  yet  we  shall  see  is  not  abso- 
lutely identical  with  it,  should  be  always  employed 
in  its  stead  (Lobeck,  Pathol.  Serm,  Grcec.  p.  237). 
In  the  N.  T.  we  meet  with  it  four  times,  always  in 
the  wi'itings  of  St.  Paul  (Kom.  xv.  14 ;  Gal.  v.  22  ; 
Ephes.  V.  9 ;  2  Thess.  i.  11) ;  and  it  is  invariably 
rendered  '  goodness '  in  our  Yersion.  We  feel  the 
want  of  some  word  more  special  and  definite  at 
such  passages  as  Gal.  v.  22,  where  ayaOwavvq 
makes  one  of  a  long  list  of  Christian  virtues  or 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  59 

graces,  -and  must  mean  some  single  and  separate 
grace,  while  '  goodness '  seems  to  embrace  all.  To 
explain  it  there,  as  Phavorimis  explains  it,  ?;  aTnjp- 
Tia-fjiipT]  aperrj,  is  little  satisfactory.  It  is  quite 
true  that  in  such  passages  as  Ps.  lii.  5,  it  is  set  over 
against  icaKia,  and  has  this  general  meaning,  but 
not  there.  At  the  same  time  it  is  hard  to  suggest 
any  other  rendering ;  even  as,  no  doubt,  it  is  harder 
to  seize  the  central  force  of  this  word  than  it  is  of 
')(pr\GTOTr\<;,  this  difficulty  mainly  arising  from  the 
fact  that  we  have  no  helping  passages  in  other 
literature  ;  for,  however  these  can  never  be  admit- 
ted to  give  the  absolute  law  to  the  meaning  of 
words  in  Scripture,  we  feel  much  at  a  loss  when 
such  are  wanting  altogether.  It  may  be  well, 
therefore,  to  consider  ^i^/ot/o-tott;?  first,  and  when 
it  is  seen  what  domain  of  meaning  is  occupied  by 
it,  we  may  then  better  judge  what  remains  for 

That  other,  a  beautiful  word,  as  it  is  the  expres- 
sion of  a  beautiful  grace,  (cf.  %/3'?;(7T077^€ta,  Ecclus. 
xxxvii.  13),  like  ar^adworvvrj,  occurs  in  the  ]^.  T. 
only  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  being  by  him 
joined  to  ^CkavOpcoirla  (Tit.  iii.  4) ;  to  fiaKpoOvfJula 
and  avo')(fi  (Rom.  ii.  4) ;  and  opposed  to  airorofila 
(Eom.  xi.  22).  The  E.  Y.  renders  it  *  good '  (Rom. 
iii.  12);  *  kindness'  (2  Cor.  vi.  6;  Ephes.  ii.  T; 
Col.  iii.  12;  Tit.  iii.  4);  'gentleness'  (Gal.  v.  22). 


60  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

Tlie  Rheims,  which  has  for  it  '  benignity '  (Gal.  v. 
22),  ^  sweetness  '  (2  Cor.  vi.  6),  has  perhaps  seized 
more  successfally  the  central  notion  of  the  word. 
It  is  explained  in  the  Definitions  which  go  tinder 
Plato's  name  (412  e),  ijOov^;  airXacrTLa  fier  evXo- 
yi,(TTia<ii  by  Phavorinus,  evGTfXa^yyia,  r)  irpo^  tov<^' 
TreXa?  avvccdOeai^,  ra  avrov  &)?  ol/cela  icLoiroLoviievr]. 
It  is  joined  by  Clemens  Romanns  with  eXeo?  (1  Ep. 
i.  9) ;  by  Plutarch  with  ^CkavOpayTrla  {Bemet.  50) ; 
with  evfjbeveia  {De  Cajp.  ex  In,  TJtil,  9) ;  with  ^\v- 
KvOviila  [Terr,  an  AquccL  32) ;  with  aTrXorrj^;  and 
fjueyaXocppocrvvT] :  grouped  by  Philo  with  evOv/iiay 
7)[jLep6T7)^,  7]iribTri^  (JDe  Mer.  Merc.  3).  So  too,  when 
Josephus  speaks  of  the  xpv^'^^t7]<;  of  Isaac  {Antt,  i. 
18.  3),  the  word  marks  upon  his  part  a  very  true 
insight  into  the  character  of  the  patriarch ;  see  Gen. 
xxvi.  20—22. 

Calvin  has  quite  too  superficial  a  view  of  xp7]- 
G-TOTT]^,  when,  commenting  on  Col.  iii.  12,  he  writes : 
'Comitatem — sic  enim  vertere  libuit  xPV^'^^TTjra, 
qua  nos  reddimus  amabiles.  Mansuetudo  \TrpavT7]<f\^ 
quae  sequitur,  latius  patet  quam  comitas^  nam  ilia 
praecipue  est  in  vultu  ac  sermone,  hsec  etiam  in 
affectu  interiore.'  So  far  from  being  this  mere 
grace  of  word  and  countenance,  it  is  one  pervading 
and  penetrating  the  whole  nature,  mellowing  there 
all  which  would  have  been  harsh  and  austere  ;  thus 
wine  is  %/37;crT69,  which  has  been  mellowed  with 


NEW  TESTA3IENT.  61 

age  (Luke  v.  39) ;  Christ's  yoke  is  ^pT^o-ro?,  as  hav- 
ing nothing  harsh  or  galling  about  it  (Matt.  xi.  30). 
On  the  distinction  between  it  and  afyaOaya-vvrj  Coc- 
ceius  (on  Gal.  v.  22),  quoting  Tit.  iii.  4,  where 
Xpw^oTrj<;  occurs,  goes  on  to  say  :  *  Ex  quo  exemplo 
patet  per  hanc  vocem  significari  quandam  liberali- 
tatem  et  studium  benefaciendi.  Per  alteram  autem 
[ayadcoa-vvT]]  possumus  intelligere  comitatem,  sua- 
vitatem  morum,  concinnitatem,  gravitatem  morum, 
et  omnem  amabilitatem  cum  decoro  et  dignitate  con- 
junctam.'  This  does  not  seem  to  me  perfectly  suc- 
cessful as  a  distinction.  If  the  words  are  at  all  set 
over  against  one  another  the  '  suavitas '  belongs  to 
the  %/>7;{rTOT779  rather  than  to  the  dyaOcocrvvr].  I 
like  much  better  what  Jerome  has  said  on  the 
difference  between  the  w^ords.  Indeed,  I  do  not 
know  anything  so  well  said  on  this  matter  else- 
where {Com.  in  Ep.  ad  Gal.  v.  22) :  '  Benignitas 
sive  suavitas,  quia  apud  Grsecos  ^/jt^cttott;?  utrum- 
que  son  at,  virtus  est  lenis,  blanda,  tranquilla,  et 
omnium  bonorum  apta  consortio ;  invitans  ad  fa- 
miliaritatem  sui,  dulcis  alloquio,  moribus  tempe- 
rata.  Denique  et  hanc  Stoici  ita  definiunt :  Benig- 
nitas est  virtus  sponte  ad  benefaciendum  exposita. 
!N"on  multum  honitas  [dyadcoavvT}']  a  benignitate 
diversa  est ;  quia  et  ipsa  ad  benefaciendum  videtur 
exposita.  Sed  in  eo  differt ;  quia  potest  bonitas 
esse   tristior,   et  fronte  severis  moribus  irrugata, 


62  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

bene  quideni  facere  et  prsestare  qnod  poscitur ;  non 
tamen  siiavis  esse  consortio,  et  sua  cunctos  invitare 
dulcedine.  Hanc  quoque  sectatores  Zenonis  ita 
definiunt :  Bonitas  est  virtus  quae  prodest,  sive, 
yirtus  ex  qua  oritur  utilitas;  aut,  virtus  propter 
semetipsam ;  aut,  affectus  qui  fons  sit  utilitatum.' 
With  this  agrees  in  the  main  the  distinction  which 
Basil  draws  between  the  words  {Beg.  Brev.  Tract. 
214) :  TrXarvripav  olfiat,  elvac  ttjv  ')ypr}<TT6T7jTa,  eZ? 
evepjealav  rcov  67rco<;  Stjttotovv  iTTcSeo/jiivcov  TavT7)<: ' 
(rvv7]yfjiev7jv  Be  fiaXKov  ttjv  a'ya6(0(Tvvr}v,  koX  tol<;  t^9 
BcKatGavvrj^  \070t9  iv  rah  evep'^/ecriai^  (Tvyx^pco/jLivrjv. 

A  man  might  display  his  ayaOcocrvvrj,  his  zeal 
for  goodness  and  truth,  in  rebuking,  correcting, 
chastising.  Christ  was  working  in  the  spirit  of 
this  grace  when  He  drove  the  buyers  and  sellers 
out  of  the  temple  (Matt.  xxi.  13) ;  when  He  uttered 
all  those  terrible  w^ords  against  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  recorded  in  the  23d  chapter  of  St.  Mat- 
thew ;  but  we  could  not  say  that  his  ^jot^cttott;?  was 
shown  in  these  acts  of  a  righteous  indignation. 
This  was  rather  displayed  in  his  reception  of  the 
penitent  woman  (Luke  vii.  37 — 50  ;  cf  Ps.  xxiv.  7, 
8) ;  in  all  his  gracious  dealings  with  the  children  of 
men.  Thus  we  might  speak, — the  Apostolic  Oon- 
stitutions  (ii.  22)  do  speak, — of  the  xpV^'^orr]^  Tr]<; 
ayadcocrvvr]^;  of  God,  but  scarcely  of  the  converse. 
This  xpV(^T0T7j<;  was  predominantly  the  character  of 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  63 

Christ's  ministry,  so  mucli  so  that  it  is  nothing 
wonderful  to  learn  from  Tertnllian  {Apol.  3),  how 
'  Christns '  became  '  Chrestus,'  and  '  Christiani  ' 
'  Chrestiani '  on  the  lips  of  the  heathen — with  that 
undertone,  it  is  true,  of  contempt,^  which  the  world 
feels,  and  soon  learns  to  express  in  words,  for  a 
goodness  which  to  it  seems  to  have  only  the  harm- 
lessness  of  the  dove,  and  nothing  of  the  wisdom  of 
the  serpent ;  a  contempt  which  it  is  justified  in 
feeling  for  a  goodness  which  has  no  edge,  no  shai-p- 
ness  in  it,  no  righteous  indignation  against  sin,  nor 
willingness  to  punish  it.  That  what  was  called 
Xpr^cTTOTr]^,  still  retaining  this  honourable  name,  did 
yet  sometimes  degenerate  into  this,  and  end  with 
being  no  goodness  at  all,  we  have  evidence  in  a 
striking  fragment  of  Menander  (Meineke,  Fragm. 
Com,  GrcBC,  p.  982) :— 

Tl  vvv  vTTo  rivoov  xP'?<'''''<5t77S  KaXovix4v7} 
fi€6r}Ke  rhv  '6\ov  ets  irovqpiav  filov  ' 
ovdels  yh.p  aZiKwv  Tvyx°^^^''  Tificoplas. 

^  The  xp^JCTos  was  called  ijXiOios  by  those  who  would  fain  take 
every  thing  by  its  wrong  handle  (Aristotle,  Eket.  i.  9.  3 ;  cf.  Euse* 
bins,  Prap.  Evang.  v.  6.  5). 


64: 


6TK0NTMS  OF  THE 


§  xiv. — hiKTVov,  a/jLcjiifiXTja-Tpov,  (rayi]V7j, 

OuK  English  word  *net'  will,  in  a  general  way, 
cover  all  these  three,  which  yet  are  capable  of  a 
more  accurate  discrimination  one  from  the  other. 

AUtvov  (=  'rete,'  'retia'),  from  the  old  hiKelvy 
to  cast,  which  appears  again  in  Blotko^;,  a  qnoit,  is 
the  more  general  name  for  all  nets,  and  would  in- 
clude the  hunting  net  as  well  as  the  fishing,  although 
used  only  of  the  latter  in  the  ]^.  T.  (Matt.  iv.  20; 
John  xxi.  6). 

^AfjL<j)Ll3Xr)(Trpov  and  o-ayTjvy  are  different  kinds 
of  fishing  nets ;  they  occur  together.  Hah.  i.  15 ; 
and  in  Plutarch  {J)e  Sol.  Anijn.  26),  who  joins 
fypLTTO^  with  aajTjvr],  vTro^V  with  dfKJyi/SXrjcrTpov. 
A/jLcj)il3X7]aTpov,  found  only  in  the  N.  T.  at  Matt, 
iv.  18,  and  Mark  i.  16 ;  cf.  Eccl.  ix.  12  ;  Ps.  cxl.  10 ; 
{a/jL(J3il3oX7],  Oppian),  is  the  casting  net,  *jaculum,' 
^.  e.  'rete  jaculum '  (Ovid,  Ar.  Am.  i.  Y63),  or 
*fiinda'  (Yirgil,  Georg.  i.  141),  which,  when  skil- 
fully cast  from  over  the  shoulder  by  one  standing 
on  the  shore,  or  in  a  boat,  spreads  out  into  a  circle 
{af/.<f>ifidXX6Tat)  as  it  falls  upon  the  water,  and  then 
sinking  swiftly  by  the  weight  of  the  leads  attached 
to  it,  encloses  whatever  is  below  it.  Its  circular, 
bell-like  shape  adapted  it  to  the  office  of  a  mosquito 


NEW   TEST.LMENT.  65 

net,  to  which,  as  Herodotus  (ii.  95)  tells  us,  the 
Egyptian  fishermen  turned  it ;  but  see  Blakesley's 
Herodotus^  in  loco. 

Xa^rivrj,  found  only  at  Matt.  xiii.  47 :  cf.  Eccl. 
vii.  28 ;  Isai.  xix.  8  (from  o-arTO),  ^  onero,'  perf. 
aea-a^a),  is  the  long  draw-net,  or  sweep-net,  '  vasta 
sagena'  Manilius  calls  it,  the  ends  of  which  being 
carried  out  in  boats  so  as  to  enclose  a  large  space 
of  open  sea,  are  then  drawn  together,  and  all  which 
they  contain,  enclosed  and  taken.  It  is  rendered 
*  sagena  '  in  the  Yulgate,  whence  '  seine,'  or  '  scan,' 
the  name  which  this  net  has  in  Cornwall,  on  whose 
coasts  it  is  much  in  use.  In  classical  Latin  it  is 
called  '  everriculum '  (see  Cicero's  pun  upon  Verres' 
name,  '  everriculum  in  provincia '),  from  its  sweep- 
ing the  bottom  of  the  sea.  From  the  fact  that  it 
was  thus  a  Trdvaypov  or  take-all  (Homer,  II.  v. 
487),  the  Greeks  gave  the  name  of  G-ayi]V€V€iv  to 
a  device  by  which  the  Persians  were  reported  to 
have  cleared  a  conquered  island  of  its  inhabitants 
(Herodotus,  iii.  149  ;  vi.  31 ;  Plato,  -Legg.  iii.  698  d). 
Yirgil  in  two  lines  describes  the  fishing  by  aid  of 
the  dfi(f>l^\7](rTpov  and  the  aayqvrj,  every  word  in 
each  line  having  its  precise  fitness  for  its  own  kind 
{Georg.  i.  141) :— 

'  Atque  alius  latum  fundii  jam  verberat  amnem 
Alta  petens,  pelagoque  alius  trahit  humida  lina.' 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  an  evident  fitness  in 


66     '  8TK0NTMS  OF  THE 

our  Lord's  use  of  aa'yrjvri  in  a  parable  (Matt.  xiii. 
47)  wherein  He  is  setting  forth  the  wide  reach,  and 
all-embracing  character,  of  his  future  kingdom. 
Neither  djuL(j)L^7jcrTpov,  nor  yet  Blktvov  which  might 
not  have  meant  more  than  aiK^i^XrjaTpov,  would 
have  suited  at  all  so  well. 


§  XV. — \v7reofjLai,  irevOeco,  OpTjveco,  kottto). 

In  all  these  words  there  is  the  sense  of  grief,  or 
the  utterance  of  grief;  but  the  sense  of  grief  in  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  intensity,  the  utterance  of  it  in 
different  ways  of  manifestation. 

AvTrelaOav  (Matt.  xiv.  9 ;  Ephes.  iv.  30  ;  1  Pet. 
i.  6)  is  the  most  general  word,  to  be  soiTOwful, 
'  dolere,'  being  opposed  to  'xaipeuv  (Aristotle,  Wiet. 
i.  2),  as  \v7rri  to  %a/3a  (Xenophon,  Hell.  vii.  1,  22). 
This  Xvirrj,  unlike  the  grief  of  the  three  following 
words,  a  man  may  so  entertain  in  the  deep  of  his 
heart,  that  there  shall  not  be  any  outward  manifes- 
tation of  it,  unless  he  himself  be  pleased  to  reveal 
it  (Kom.  ix.  2  ;  Phil.  ii.  Y). 

Not  so  the  TrevOelv,  vfhicli  is  stronger,  being  not 
merely  '  dolere '  or  ^  angi,'  but  '  lugere,'  and  like 
this  last,  properly  and  primarily  (Cicero,  Tusc.  i. 
13;    iv.   8:  'luctus,  segritudo  ex  ejus,  qui  cams 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  67 

fuerit,  interitu  acerb o ')  to  lament  for  tlie  dead ;  7rei>- 
Oeiv  ve/cvv  (Homer,  Jl.  xix.  225);  tou9  a7ro\co\6Ta<; 
(Xenoplion,  Hell.  ii.  2,  3) ;  then  any  other  passionate 
lamenting  (Sopliocles,  (Ed,  Tyr.  1296 ;  Gen.  xxxvii. 
34) ;  irevOo^  being  in  fact  a  form  of  irdOo^  (see  Pln- 
tarcb,  Cons,  ad  Ajpoll.  22) ;  to  grieve  with  a  grief 
which  so  takes  possession  of  the  whole  being  that 
it  cannot  be  hid  ;  cf.  Spanheim  {Dub.  JEvang,  81) : 
'irevOelv  enim  apnd  Hellenistas  respondit  verbis 
n33  Kkaieiv,  dprjvelv,  et  h'^b^n  okoXv^eiVy  adeoque  non 
tantnm  denotat  luctum  conceptum  intus,  sed  et  ex- 
pressum  foris.'  According  to  Chrysostom  {in  loco) 
the  irevOovvre^;  of  Matt.  v.  4  are  ol  fxer  eTrLTaaeco^ 
\v7rovfjL6voL,  those  who  so  grieve  that  their  grief 
manifests  itself  externally.  Thus  we  find  irevdetv 
often  joined  with  Kkaietv  (2  Kin.  xix.  1 ;  Mark  xvi. 
10 ;  Jam.  iv.  9 ;  Rev.  xviii.  13) ;  so  irevOwv  koI 
o-KvOpcoird^cov,  Ps.  xxxiv.  14.  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
(Suicer,  T/ies.  s.  v.  7riv6o<;),  gives  it  more  generally, 
TrivOos  ea-TL  (TKvdpcoTrr}  BcdOecrcf;  tt}?  ^Iryxv^t  eVl  crre- 
p7]cr6i  Tti/09  T(ov  KaradvfjLicov  <TvvicrTafj>ev7j :  but  he 
was  not  distinguishing  synonyms,  and  in  nothing 
therefore  induced  to  draw  out  finer  distinctions. 

©p7]velv,  joined  with  oBvpeaOac  (Plutarch,  Quom. 
Virf.  Prof.  5),  with  KaroiKTeLpeiv  {Cons,  ad  Ajpoll. 
11),  is  to  bewail,  to  make  a  Oprjvog,  a  'nenia'  or 
dirge  over  the  dead,  which  may  be  mere  wailing 
or  lamentation  {Oprjvo^  koX  KXavdfj.6^,  Matt.  ii.  18), 


68  6TN0NTMS  OF  THE 

breaking  out  Id  unstudied  words,  the  Irish  wake  is 
such  a  6prjvo<;y  or  it  may  take  the  more  artificial 
form  of  a  poem.  That  beautiful  lamentation  which 
David  composed  over  Saul  and  Jonathan,  is  intro- 
duced in  the  Septuagint  with  these  words,  edpr)vr)(re 
Aa/SlS  Tov  6pi)vov  TovTov,  K.  T.  X.  (2  Sam.  i.  17),  and 
the  sublime  dirge  over  Tyre  is  called  a  6pr]vo<i 
(Ezek.  xxvi.  17 ;  cf.  Eev.  xviii.  11 ;  2  Chron.  xxxv. 
25  ;  Amos  viii.  10). 

We  have  last  to  deal  with  KOTrreiv  (Matt.  xxiv. 
30 ;  Luke  xxiii.  27  ;  Eev.  i.  7).  This  being  first  to 
strike,  is  then  that  act  which  most  commonly  went 
along  with  the  OpT^velv,  to  strike  the  bosom,  or  beat 
the  breast,  as  an  outward  sign  of  inward  grief 
(ITah.  ii.  7  ;  Luke  xviii.  13) ;  so  Koirero^  (Acts  viii. 
2)  is  6prjvo<;  fjL6Ta  '^o^ov  ')(€Lp(x)v  (Hesychius),  and,  as 
TrevOeiVy  oftenest  in  token  of  grief  for  the  dead  (Gen. 
xxiii.  2 ;  2  Kin.  iii.  31).  It  is  the  Latin  '  plangere  ' . 
(*  laniataque  pectora  plangens ' :  Ovid,  Ifetam,  vi. 
248),  which  is  connected  with  '  plaga '  and  nfkridcrai, 
Plutarch  {Cons,  ad  TJx.  4)  joins  oko<^vpGei^  and  ko* 
ireToi  (cf.  Fab.  Max.  17 :  KOTrerol  yvvaLKeloc)  as  two 
of  the  more  violent  manifestations  of  grief,  and  such 
as  he  esteems  faulty  in  their  excess. 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  69 


§  xvi. — d/JLaprla,   afidpTrjfia,    irapaKorf,    dvofMLa,    wa- 
pavofiCa,     nrapd^aat^j     irapdirrcojia,     dyvornia, 

— SS^=^ 
A  MOTJRNETJLLY  numerous  group  of  words,  wHch 

it  would  Jbe  only  too  easy  to  make  mucli  larger 
thanjJLis.--.  S'or  is  it  hard  to  see  why.  For  sin, 
which  we  may  define  in  the  language  of  St.  Augus- 
tine, as  '  factum  vel  dictum  vel  concupitum  aliquid 
contra  seternam  legem '  {Con.  Faust,  xxii.  27 ;  cf. 
the  Stoic  definition,  dfidpTTj/jLa,  v6/jlov  dirarfopevfjia, 
Plutarch,  De  Bep,  Stoic.  11);  or  again,  *  voluntas 
admittendi  vel  retinendi  quod  justitia  vetat,  et  undo 
liberum  est  abstinere'  {Co7i.  Jul.  i.  47),  may  be 
regarded  under  an  infinite  number  of  aspects,  and 
in  all  languages  has  been  so  regarded ;  and  as  the 
diagnosis  of  it  belongs  above  all  to  the  Scriptures, 
nowhere  else  are  we  likely  to  find  it  contemplated 
on  so  many  sides,  set  forth  under  such  various 
images.  It  may  be  contemplated  as  the  missing 
of  a  mark  or  aim  ;  it  is  then  d/xapTia  or  dfidprTjfjLa : 
the  overpassing  or  transgressing  of  a  line ;  it  is 
then  irapd^a(7L<^;  the  disobedience  to  a  voice;  in 
which  case  it  is  irapaKorj :  the  falling  where  one 
should  have  stood  upright ;  this  will  be  Trapdirroi- 
Lia :  ignorance  of  what  one  ought  to  have  known ; 


70  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

this  will  be  wyvorjiia :  diminishing  of  that  which 
sliould  have  been  rendered  in  full  measure,  which  is 
7]Tr7)fj,a :  non-observance  of  a  law,  which  is  avofxCa 
or  Trapavo/jLia :  a  discord,  and  then  it  is  ifkrjfMfjLeXeia : 
and  in  other  ways  almost  out  of  number. 

In  seeking  accurately  to  define  dfiapria,  and  so 
better  to  distinguish  it  from  the  other  words  of  this 
group,  there  is  no  help  to  be  derived  from  its 
etymology,  seeing  that  is  quite  uncertain.  Suidas, 
as  is  well  known,  derives  it  from  fjudpTrra),  '  d/jLaprla 
quasi  d/xapTTTLa,^  a  failing  to  grasp.  Buttmann's 
conjecture  {Zexilogus,  p.  85,  English  edition),  that 
it  belongs  to  the  root  [xepo^,  fielpeLv,  on  which  a 
negative  intransitive  verb,  to  be  without  one's  share 
of,  to  miss,  was  formed,  has  found  more  favour  (see 
Fritzsche  on  Rom.  v.  12,  a  long  note,  with  excellent 
philology  and  execrable  theology).  Only  this  much 
is  plain,  that  when  sin  is  contemplated  as  dfiapria, 
it  is  regarded  as  a  failing  and  missing  the  true  end 
and  scope  of  our  lives,  which  is  God ;  y  rov  dryaOov 
aTTOTTTCeJo-t?,  as  CEcumcnius ;  y  rod  dyaOov  diroTv^lay 
and  diiapTavuv  an  aGKoira  ro^eveLv,  as  Suidas  ;  ^  tov 
KoXov  eKTpoTrr},  elVe  rov  Kara  (ftvaiv,  etre  rov  Kara 
vofjLov,  as  another. 

It  is  a  matter  of  course  that  with  slighter  apj)re- 
hensions  of  sin,  and  of  the  evil  of  sin,  there  must  go 
hand  in  hand  a  slighter  ethical  significance  in  the 
words  used  to  express  sin.     It  is  therefore  nothing 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  71 

wonderful  tliat  afiaprCa  and  dfjiaprdvecv  should  no- 
where in  classical  Greek  obtain  that  depth  of  mean- 
ing which  in  revealed  religion  they  acquired.  The 
words  run  through  the  same  course,  through  which 
all  words  ultimately  taken  up  into  ethical  termi- 
nology, seem  inevitably  to  run.  Employed  first 
about  things  natural,  they  are  then  transferred  to 
things  spiritual,  according  to  that  analogy  between 
those  and  these,  which  the  soul  delights  to  trace. 
Thus  djiaprdveiv  signifies,  when  we  meet  it  first,  to 
miss  a  mark ;  thus  a  hundred  times  in  Homer  the 
warrior  dfjuaprei,  who  hurls  his  spear,  but  misses  his 
adversary  {II.  iv.  491).  The  next  advance  in  the 
use  of  the  words  is  to  things  intellectual.  The  poet 
dfiapTavei,  who  selects  a  subject  which  it  is  impos- 
sible to  treat  poetically,  or  who  seeks  to  attain  re- 
sults which  are  beyond  the  limits  of  his  art  (Aris- 
totle, Poet.  8  and  25) ;  so  we  have  80^77?  ajxaprla 
(Thucydides,  i.  33) ;  7z/ft)/i?;9  diidprrjfjLa  (ii.  65).  It 
is  constantly  set  over  against  opdoTy^  (Plato,  Zegg. 
i.  627  d;  ih.  ii.  668  c;  Aristotle,  Poet  25).  So 
far  from  having  any  ethical  significance  of  necessity 
attaching  to  it,  Aristotle  sometimes  withdraws  it, 
almost,  if  not  altogether,  from  the  region  of  right 
and  wrong  {Eth.  Nic.  v.  8,  7) ;  it  is  a  mistake,  a 
fearful  one  it  may  be,  like  that  of  CEdipus,  but 
nothing  more  {Poet.  13  ;  cf.  Euripides,  Hippolytus, 
1407).    Elsewhere,  however,  it  has  as  much  of  the 


72  SYNONYMS  OF  THE 

meaning  of  our  *sin,'  as  any  word,  employed  in 
heathen  ethics,  could  possess. 

' A/MapTTjfjua  differs  from  ajiapTLa,  in  that  dfiapTia 
is  sin  m  the  abstract  as  well  as  the  concrete;  or 
again,  the  act  of  sinning  no  less  than  the  sin  sin- 
ned, 'peccatio'  (A.  Gellius,  xiii.  20,  17)  no  less 
than  '  peccatum ' ;  while  d/judpTTj/jLa  (it  only  occurs 
Mark  iii.  28  ;  iv.  12 ;  Kom.  iii.  25  ;  1  Cor.  vi.  18) 
is  never  sin  regarded  as  sinfulness,  or  as  the  act  of 
sinning,  but  only  sin  contemplated  in  its  separate 
outcomings  and  deeds  of  disobedience  to  a  divine 
law.  There  is  the  same  difference  between  dvopuia 
and  dv6p.7]/jba  (not  in  the  'N.  T. ;  but  Ezek.  xvi.  49), 
dae/Seta  and  dcre/BrjiJia  (not  in  the  N.  T. ;  but  Lev. 
xviii.  17), .  dSiKta  and  dSLfC7jp,a  (Acts  xviii.  14). 
This  is  brought  out  by  Aristotle  (Ethic.  Nic.  v.  7), 
who  sets  over  against  one  another  dBcKov  {=  dScKia) 
and  dhUrjpLa  in  these  words :  Bia^ipet  to  dhUrjpLa 
Kol  TO  dhiKOV.  "ABcKov  pulv  ydp  earv  rfj  (j>vaei,  rj 
Ta^ec '  TO  avTo  he  rovTOy  orav  irpaxOfi,  dSiKTjpbd  iaTC ; 
cf.  a  good  passage  in  Xenophon  {Mem.  ii.  2.  3) :  at 
TToXei?  eVl  rot?  pL6ytaToi,<;  dhLKrjpLaai  ^7)p,(av  OdvdTOV 
ireTTOirjKaaiv,  &)?  ovk  dv  pLeit,6vo^  KaKov  (po^o)  ttjv 
dEiKiav  TravaovTe^;.  On  the  distinction  between 
dpiapTla  and  dp^dpTrj/xa,  dhiKia  and  dSUrjp^a,  and 
other  words  of  this  group,  there  is  a  discussion  at 
length  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria  {Strom,  ii.  15), 
but  which  does  not  yield  much  profit. 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  Y3 

UapaKorijs,  found  only  at  Eom.  v.  19  (where  it 
is  opposed  to  viraKori\  2  Cor.  x.  6 ;  Heb.  ii.  2.  It 
is  not  in  the  Septuagint,  but  irapaKoveiv  (once  in 
the  N.  T.,  Matt,  xviii.  17)  occurs  several  times 
there  in  the  sense  of  to  disobey,  Esth.  iii.  3,  8; 
Isai.  Ixv.  12.  UapaKOTj  is  in  its  strictest  sense  a 
failing  to  hear,  or  a  hearing  amiss — the  active  dis- 
obedience, which  follows  on  this  inattentive  or  care- 
less hearing,  being  tacitly  implied ;  or,  it  may  be, 
the  sin  being  contemplated  as  already  committed 
in  the  failing  to  listen  when  God  is  speaking. 
Bengel  (on  Kom.  v.  19)  has  a  good  note :  '  irapd  in 
'TrapaKorj  perquam  apposite  declarat  rationem  initii 
in  lapsu  Adami.  Quseritur  quomodo  hominis  recti 
intellectus  aut  voluntas  potuit  detrimentum  capere 
aut  noxam  admittere  ?  Kesp.  Intellectus  et  volun- 
tas simul  labavit  per  afMeXeiav'  neque  quicquam 
potest  prius  concipi,  quam  afxekuay  incuria,  sicut 
initium  capiendse  urbis  est  vigiliarum  remissio. 
Hanc  incuriam  significat  rrapaKori,  inobedientia.' 
It  need  hardly  be  observed  how  continually  in  the 
0.  T.  disobedience  is  described  as  a  refusing  to  hear 
(Jer.  xi.  10  ;  xxxv.  17);  and  it  appears  literally  as 
such  at  Acts  vii.  57r^  Joined  with,  and  following 
Trapd^acri^  at  Heb.  ii.  2,  it  would  there  imply,  in 
the  intention  of  the  writer,  that  not  merely  every 
actual  transgression,  embodying  itself  in  an  out- 
>vard  act  of  disobedience,  was  punished,  but  ey^ry 


74  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

refusal  to  hear,  even  though  it  might  not  have 
asserted  itself  in  such  overt  acts  of  disobedience. 

"We  have  generally  translated  ayoiilo''  iniquity  ' 
(Matt.  vii.  23 ;  Eom.  vi.  19 ;  Heb.  x.  17) ;  but  once 
'  unrighteousness '  (2  Cor.  vi.  14),  and  once  '  trans- 
gression of  the  law '  (1  John  iii.  4).  "Avofio^  is 
once  at  least  in  Scripture  used  negatively  of  a  per- 
son without  law,  or  to  whom  a  law  has  not  been 
given  (1  Cor.  ix.  21) ;  though  elsewhere  of  the 
greatest  enemy  of  all  law,  the  Man  of  Sin,  the  law- 
less one  (2  Thess.  ii.  8) ;  -avoixla,  however,  is  never 
in  Scripture  the  condition  of  one  living  without 
law,  but  always  the  condition  or  deed  of  one  who 
acts  contrary  to  law :  and  so,  of  course,  irapavofila, 
w^hich  occurs  however  only  once  (2  Pet.  ii.  16).  It 
will  follow  that  where  there  is  no  law  (Eom.  v. 
12),  there  may  be  afMapria,  aScKta,  but  certainly 
not  avojjLLa :  being,  as  OEcumenius  defines  it,  r)  irepl 
TOP  Oerov  vofjLov  TrXrjfjLfjLeXeta :  as  Fritzsche :  *  legis 
contemtio  aut  morum  licentia  qua  lex  violatur.' 
Thus  the  Gentiles,  not  having  a  law  (Eom.  ii.  14), 
might  sin,  but  they,  sinning  without  law  {av6fjLco<i 
=  %a)/)t9  vofjLov,  Eom.  ii.  12 ;  iii.  21),  could  not  be 
charged  with  avofjula.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  be- 
hind that  law  of  Moses,  which  they  never  had, 
there  is  another  law,  the  original  law  and  revela- 
tion of  the  righteousness  of  God,  written  on  the 
hearts  of  all  (Eom,  ii.  14,  15) ;    and  as  this  in  no 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  Y5 

liTiman  heart  is  obliterated  quite,  all  sin,  even  tliat 
of  tlie  darkest  and  most  ignorant  savage,  must  still 
in  a  secondary  sense  remain  as  avofjiia,  a  violation 
of  tliis  older,  tliougli  partially  obscured  law.  Thus 
Origen  (m  Eom.  iv.  5) :  '  Iniquitas  sane  a  peccato 
Lane  habet  diiferentiam,  quod  iniquitas  in  his 
dicitur  quae  contra  legem  committuntur,  unde  et 
Grsecus  sermo  dvo/jLiav  appellat.  Peccatum  vero 
etiam  illud  dici  potest,  si  contra  quam  natura  docet, 
et  conscientia  arguit,  delinquatur.'  Cf.  Xenophon, 
Mem.  iv.  4.  18,  19. 

It  is  the  same  with  irapd^aai^.  There  must  be 
something  to  transgress,  before  there  can  be  a  trans- 
gression. There  was  sir^  between  Adam  and  Moses, 
as  was  witnessed  by  the  fact  that  there  was  death ; 
but  those  between  the  law  given  in  Paradise  (Gen. 
ii.  16,  lY)  and  the  law  given  from  Sinai,  sinning 
indeed,  yet  did  not  sin  "  after  the  similitude  of 
Adam's  transgression  "  {Trapa/Sdcreo}^,  Pom.  v.  14). 
"With  law  came  first  the  possibility  of  the  trans- 
gression of  the  law  ;  and  exactly  tliis  transgression, 
or  trespass,  is  irapajSacrc^,  from  irapajSalveLV,  '  tran- 
silire  lineam,'  the  French,  '  forfait,'  '  faire  fors '  or 
'  hors,'  some  act  which  is  excessive,  enormous.  Ci- 
cero {Pavad.  3) :  '  Peccare  est  tanquam  transiliro 
lineas ;'  compare  the  Homeric  virep^acrLrj,  11.  iii.  107 
and  often.  In  the  constant  language  of  St.  Paul  this 
'Kapd^acn<^y  as  the  transgression  of  a  commandment 


76  SYNONYMS  OF   THE 

distinctly  given,  is  more  serious  than  dfiaprla  (Kom. 
ii.  23  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  14  ;  cf.  Heb.  ii.  2  ;  ix.  14).  It  is 
m  tliis  point  of  view,  and  indeed  with  reference  to 
the  very  word  with  which  we  have  to  do,  that 
Augustine  draws  often  the  distinction  between  the 
*  peccator '  and  the  '  prsevaricator,'  between  '  pec- 
catum '  (ayLta/3Tta)  and  '  praevaricatio  '  (TrapaySao-^?).* 
It  will  be  seen  that  his  Latin  word  introduces  a 
new  image,  not  of  overpassing  a  line,  but  of  halting 
on  unequal  feet.  The  image,  however,  had  faded 
from  the  word  when  he  used  it,  and  his  motive  to 
employ  it  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  '  prsevaricator,'  or 
collusive  prosecutor,  dealt  unjustly  with  a  law. 
He  who,  having  no  express  law,  sins,  is  in  Augus- 
tine's language,  ^  peccator ; '  he  who,  having  a  law, 
sins,  is  ^  prsevaricator '  (=  Trapa^ar?;?,  Rom.  ii.  25). 
Before  the  law  came  men  might  be  the  first ;  after 
the  law  they  could  only  be  the  second.  In  the 
first  there  is  implicit,  in  the  second  explicit,  dis- 
obedience. 

*W"e  now  arrive  at  TrapaTTTcofia.  '  Si  originem 
verbi  spectemus,  significat  ea  facta  prse  quibus  quis 
cadit  et  prostratus  jacet,  ut  stare  coram  Deo  et  sur- 
gere  non  potest '  (Cocceius).     At  Ej)hes.  ii.  1,  where 

^  Enarr.  in  Ps.  cxviii. ;  Serrn.  25  :  *  Omnis  quidcm  praevaricator 
peccator  est,  quia  peccat  in  lege,  sed  non  omnia  peccator  praevari- 
cator est,  quia  peccant  aliqui  sine  lege.  Ubi  autem  non  est  lex,  neo 
praevaricatio.' 


KEVf   TESTAMENT.  77 

irapairTwixara  and  dfjiapTLac  are  found  togetlierj 
Jerome  qnotes  witli  apparent  assent  a  distinction 
between  them ;  that  the  former  are  sins  conceiyed 
in  the  mind,  and  the  latter  the  same  embodied  in 
actual  deeds  :  '  Aiunt  quod  irapairroiiiaja  quasi 
initia  peccatorum  sint,  quum  cogitatio  tacita  sub- 
repit,  et  ex  aliqua  parte  conniventibus  nobis ;  nec- 
dum  tamen  nos  impulit  ad  ruinam.  Peccatum  vero 
esse,  quum  quid  opere  consummatum  pervenit  ad 
finem.'  This,  however,  cannot  be  allowed  to  pass. 
Only  this  much  truth  it  may  be  admitted  to  have  ; 
that,  as  sins  of  thought  partake  more  of  the  nature 
of  infirmity,  and  have  less  aggravation  than  the 
same  sins  embodied  in  act,  so  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  there  is  sometimes  a  disposition  to  employ 
TrapdiTTcofia  when  it  is  intended  to  designate  sins 
not  of  the  deepest  dye  and  the  worst  enormity. 
One  may  trace  this  very  clearly  at  Gal.  vi.  1,  where, 
doubtless,  our  Translators  meant  to  indicate  as 
much  when  they  rendered  it  by  'fault,'  and  not 
obscurely,  as  it  seems  to  me,  at  Rom.  v.  15,  17,  18. 
It  is  used  in  the  same  sense  as  an  error,  a  mistake 
in  judgment,  a  blunder,  by  Polybius  (ix.  10.  6 ;  cf. 
Ps.  xviii.  13).  To  a  certain  feeling  of  this  we  may 
ascribe  another  inadequate  distinction, — that,  name- 
ly, of  Augustine  {Qu.  ad^Zev.  20),  who  will  have 
irapaTTTcofjia  to  be  the  negative  omission  of  good 
Q  desertio  boni,'  or  '  delictum '),  as  contrasted  with 


78  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

afMapTLa,  the  positive  doing  of  evil  (^  perpetratio 
mali '),  thougli  of  course  this  cannot  be  accepted  as 
otherwise  having  any  right  in  it. 

But  this  mitigated  sense  is  very  far  from  be- 
longing always  to  the  word.  There  is  nothing  of  it 
at  Ephes.  ii.  1,  "  dead  in  trespasses  {TrapaiTTaiixao-i) 
and  sins  ; "  TrapaTTTcofia  is  mortal  sin,  Ezek.  xviii. 
26 ;  and  the  irapaTreaelv  of  Heb.  vi.  6  is  equivalent 
to  the  eKovalcii^  d/jbaprdvetv  of  x.  26,  the  diroo-TrjvaL 
diTo  Oeov  ^o)VTo^  of  iii.  12 ;  and  any  such  extenua- 
tion of  the  force  of  the  word  is  expressly  excluded 
in  a  passage  of  Philo  (ii.  648),  resembling  these  two 
in  the  Hebrews,  in  which  he  distinctly  calls  it  ira- 
paTTTcofia,  when  a  man,  having  reached  an  acknow- 
ledged pitch  of  godliness  and  virtue,  falls  back 
from,  and  out  of  this ;  '  he  was  lifted  up  to  the  height 
of  heaven,  and  is  fallen  down  to  the  deep  of  hell.' 

'AyvorjfLa  in  the  ]N".  T.  occurs  only  at  Heb.  ix.  7 
(see  Tholuck,  On  the  Jlehrews,  Beit.  p.  92),  but  also 
at  1  Mace.  xiii.  39  ;  and  dyvota  in  the  same  sense 
of  sin,  Ps.  XXV.  7  and  often ;  and  dyvoelv,  to  sin,  at 
Hos.  iv.  15 ;  Ecclus.  v.  15  ;  Heb.  v.  2.  Sin  is 
designated  by  this  word  when  it  is  desired  to  make 
excuses  for  it,  so  far  as  this  may  be  possible,  to  re- 
gard it  in  the  mildest  possible  light  (see  Acts  iii. 
17).  There  is  indeed  always  a  certain  element  of 
ignorance  in  every  human  transgression,  which  con- 
stitutes it  human  and  not  devilish,  and  which,  while 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  79 

it  does  not  take  away,  yet  so  far  mitigates  the  sin- 
fulness of  it,  as  to  render  its  forgiveness  not  indeed 
necessary,  but  possible.  Thus  compare  the  words 
of  the  Lord,  "  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know 
not  what  they  do  "  (Luke  xxiii.  34),  with  those  of 
St.  Paul,  "  I  obtained  mercy  because  I  did  it  igno- 
rantly,  in  unbelief"  (1  Tim.  i.  13).  'No  sin  of  man, 
except  perhaps  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  for  this  reason  is  irremissible  (Matt.  xii.  32), 
is  committed  with  a  full  and  perfect  recognition  of 
the  evil  which  is  chosen  as  evil,  and  the  good  which 
is  abandoned  as  good.  Compare  the  numerous 
passages  in  the  Dialogues  of  Plato,  which  identify 
vice  with  ignorance,  and  even  pronounce  that  no 
man  is  voluntarily  evil ;  ovSeh  eKcov  KaKo^,  and  what 
is  said  qualifying  or  guarding  this  statement  in 
Archer  Butler's  Lectiires  on  Ancient  PJiilosophy^ 
vol.  ii.  p.  285.  Whatever  exaggeration  there  may 
be  in  his  statement,  it  still  remains  true  that  sin  is 
always,  more  or  less,  an  wyvorj^a  ;  and  the  more  the 
ayvoelv,  as  opposed  to  the  eKovaiai<;  afiaprdvecv  (Heh. 
X.  26),  predominates,  the  greater  the  extenuation 
of  the  sinfulness  of  the  sin.  There  is  therefore  an 
eminent  fitness  in  the  employment  of  the  word  on 
the  one  occasion,  referred  to  already,  where  it  is 
used  in  the  IST.  T.  The  a'yvorjfiara,  or  '  errors '  of 
the  people,  for  which  the  High  Priest  offered  sacri- 
fice on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  were  not  wilful 


80  BYN0NTM8  OF  THE 

transgressions,  "  presumptuous  sins  "  (Ps.  xix.  13), 
'  peccata  proseretica,'  committed  against  conscience 
and  witli  a  high  hand  against  God  ;  those  who  com- 
mitted such  would  be  cut  off  from  the  congregation ; 
there  was  no  provision  made  in  the  Levitical  con- 
stitution for  the  forgiveness  of  such  (Num.  xv.  30, 
31) ;  but  sins  growing  out  of  the  weakness  of  the 
flesh,  out  of  an  imperfect  insight  into  God's  law, 
out  of  heedlessness  and  lack  of  due  circumspection 
(Lev.  V.  15—19;  ]S^um.  xv.  22—29),  and  after- 
wards looked  back  on  with  shame  and  regret.  Tlie 
same  difference  exists  between  orfvoia  and  a^vorjiia 
which  has  been  already  traced  between  d/xaprla 
and  dfjidpTTjfjLa,  dSiKia  and  dhlKrifia :  that  one,  name- 
ly the  first,  is  often  the  more  abstract,  the  other  is 
always  the  concrete. 

^grTTy^g  does  not  appear  in  classical  Greek,  but 
ra,  being  opposed  to  vIkt],  as  discomfiture  or 
worsting  to  victory,  and  has  passed  very  much 
through  the  same  stages  as  the  Latin  '  clades.'  In 
the  final  /xa  which  it  has  acquired  we  have  an 
illustration  of  the  tendency  of  so  many  words  to 
obtain  an  additional  syllable  in  the  later  periods  of 
a  language.  "HrrTjiia  appears  once  in  the  Septua- 
gint  (Isai.  xxxi.  8),  and  twice  in  the  IST.  T.,  namely 
at  Kom.  xi.  12  ;  1  Cor.  vi.  Y ;  but  only  in  the  latter 
instance  having  an  ethical  sense,  as  a  coming  short 
of  duty,  a  fault,  the  German  ^  Fehler,'  the  Latin 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  81 

*  delictum.'  Gerhard  {Loc.  Theoll.  xi.) :  '  rJTTrjfia 
diminutio,  defectus,  ab  rjrraaOaL  victum  esse,  quia 
peccatores  succnmbunt  earnis  et  Satanse  tentation- 
ibus.' 

nXrjiJL/jLeXeca,  a  very  frequent  word  in  tbe  Old 
Testament  (Lev.  v.  15  ;  j[S"um.  xviii.  9,  and  often), 
does  not  occur  in  the  N"ew.  It  is  derived,  as  need 
hardly  be  said,  from  7f\7j/jLfjLe\')]<;,  one  who  sings 
out  of  tune  {ttXtjv  and  fiiXo^), — as  iii^iekr}^  is  one 
who  is  in  tune,  and  ififiiXeia,  the  right  modulation 
of  the  voice  to  the  music; — so  that  Augustine's 
Greek  is  at  fault  when  he  finds  in  it  fiiXei,  '  curse 
esf  {Qu.  i7i  Lev.  1.  iii.  qu.  20),  and  makes  ifkrjfji- 
fieXeia  =  afiiXeia.  Kather  it  is  sin  regarded  as  a 
discord  or  disharmony  {irXTjfjifjLeXeiai,  koI  dfjuerpiah 
Plutarch,  Symjp.  ix.  14.  7),  according  to  those  sub- 
lime words  of  Milton : 

'  Disproportioned  sin 
Jarred  against  nature's  chime,  and  with  harsh  din 
Broke  the  fair  music  that  all  creatures  made 
To  their  great  Lord.' 


§  xvii. — apxa2o<;,  7raXat6<;, 

We  should  go  astray  if  we  contemplated  these 
words  as  expressing  one  a  higher  antiquity  than  the 


82  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

other,  and  sliould  at  all  seek  in  this  the  distinction 
between  them.  On  the  contrary,  this  remoter  an- 
tiquity will  be  expressed  now  by  one,  now  by  the 
other.  'Ap')(alo^,  expressing  that  which  was  from 
the  'beginning  (air  apyr\<^^  if  we  accept  this  as  the 
first  beginning  of  all,  mnst  be  older  than  any  per- 
son or  thing  that  is  merely  iraXaio^,  existing  a  long 
time  ago  {iroXai) ;  while  on  the  other  hand  there 
may  be  so  many  later  beginnings,  that  it  is  quite 
j)0ssible  to  conceive  the  iroKaio^  as  older  than  the 
dpxcuo<;.  In  Donaldson's  JVew  Oratylus,  p.  19,  the 
following  passage  occurs  :  'As  the  word  archcBology 
is  already  appropriated  to  the  discussion  of  those 
subjects  of  which  the  antiquity  is  only  comparative, 
it  would  be  consistent  with  the  usual  distinction 
between  apyalo^;  and  izcCKaib'^  to  give  the  name  of 
jpalceology  to  those  sciences  which  aim  at  repro- 
ducing an  absolutely  primeval  state  or  condition.' 
I  confess  I  fail  to  find  in  the  uses  of  irakaio^  so 
strong  a  sense,  or  at  least  at  all  so  constant  a  sense, 
of  a  more  primeval  state  or  condition,  as  this  state- 
ment would  seem  to  imply.  Thus  compare  Thucy- 
dides,  ii.  15  :  avfi^e/SrjKe  tovto  uTro  roO  irdvv  dp- 
Xcuov,  that  is,  from  the  pre-historic  time  of  Cecrops, 
with  i.  18 :  AaKeSai/xcov  i/c  iraXaLrdrov  evvo/JLijOij, 
from  very  early  times,  but  still  within  the  ]iistoric 
period ;  where  the  words  are  used  in  senses  exactly 
reversed. 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  83 

The  distinction  between  them  is  not  to  be  look- 
ed for  here,  and  on  many  occasions  it  is  not  to  be 
looked  for  at  all.  Often  they  occur  together  as 
merely  cumulative  synonyms,  or  at  any  rate  with 
no  higher  antiquity  predicated  by  the  one  than  by 
the  other  (Plato,  Legg.  865  d ;  Plutarch,  Cons,  ad 
Apoll.  27;  Justin  Martyr,  Coh.  ad  Grcec.  5).  It 
lies  in  the  etymology  of  the  words  that  in  cases  out 
of  number  they  may  be  quite  indifferently  used ; 
that  which  was  from  the  beginning  will  have  been 
generally  from  a  long  while  since ;  and  that  which 
was  from  a  long  while  since  will  have  been  often 
from  the  beginning.  Thus  the  apx^lcL  <^(Dvr}  of  one 
passage  in  Plato  {Crat.  418  e)  is  exactly  equivalent 
to  the  iraXaia  cffcovi]  of  another  {Ih.  398  h) ;  ol  ira- 
XacoL  and  ol  ap')(aioL  alike  mean  the  ancients  (Plu- 
tarch, Cons,  ad  Ajpoll,  14:  and  33) ;  there  cannot  be 
much  difference  between  ircCkaioi  xpovoi  (2  Mace, 
vi.  21)  and  ap'^alav  y/jiepao  (Ps.  xliii.  2). 

At  the  same  time  it  is  evident  that  whenever 
an  emphasis  is  desired  to  be  laid  on  the  reaching 
back  to  a  beginning,  whatever  that  beginning  may 
be,  a/)%ato9  will  be  preferred.  Thus  Satan  is  6  o(^t? 
6  apxalo';  (Rev.  xii.  9  ;  xx.  2),  his  mischievous  coun- 
terworkings  of  God  reaching  back  to  the  earliest 
epoch  of  the  history  of  man.  The  world  before  the 
flood,  that  therefore  which  was  indeed  from  the 
first,  is  0  apxcilo<;  Koafio^  (2  Pet.  ii.  5).     Mnason 


84  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

was  apxcuo^  ixaO'qrrj^  (Acts  xxi.  16),  "  an  old  dis- 
ciple," not  in  tlie  sense  in  which  most  English 
readers  inevitably  take  the  words,  namely,  an  aged 
disciple,  but  one  who  had  been  such  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  faith,  from  Pentecost  or  before 
it.  The  original  founders  of  the  Jewish  Common- 
wealth, who,  as  such,  gave  with  authority  the  law, 
are  ol  ap^aioi  (Matt.  v.  21,  27,  33 ;  cf.  1  Sam.  xxiv. 
14 ;  Isai.  xxv.  1) ;  tt/o-t^?  apxalcu  (Eusebius,  H.  E, 
V.  28,  9),  is  the  faith  which  was  from  the  beginning, 
"  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  The  TimcBus  of 
Plato,  22  5,  offers  an  instructive  passage  in  which 
both  words  occur,  where  it  is  not  hard  to  trace  the 
finer  instincts  of  language  which  have  determined 
their  several  use ;  another  occurs  in  the  TrachinicB, 
546,  where  Deianira  speaks  of  the  poisoned  shirt, 
the  gift  to  her  of  Nessus  : 

"fiv  jxoi  iraXaibv  Zupov  apxciov  ttotc 
6r]phsy  Ae/37jTi  x'^^'^^V  K^Kpvixp.ivov. 

Compare  the  Eumenides^  727,  728,  which  fumishea 
another. 

^Apxalo^y  like  the  Latin  *  priscus,'  will  often 
designate  the  ancient  as  the  venerable  as  well,  as 
that  to  which  the  honour  due  to  antiquity  belongs ; 
thus  Kvpo<;  6  dpxcuo<;,  Xenophon,  Anah.  i.  9.  1 ; 
and  it  is  here  that  we  reach  a  point  of  decided 
divergence  between  it  and  vraXato?,  each  going  off 
into  a  secondary  meaning  of  its  own,  which  it  doea 


NEW   TESTAaiENT.  85 

not  share  with  the  other,  but  possesses  exclusively 
as  its  own  domain.  I  have  just  observed  that  the 
honour  of  antiquity  is  sometimes  expressed  by  dp- 
Xcuo<;,  nor  indeed  is  it  altogether  strange  to  iraXaio'; : 
but  there  are  other  qualities  that  cleave  to  the 
ancient ;  it  is  often  old-fashioned,  seems  to  be  un- 
suitable to  the  present,  and  to  belong  to  a  world 
which  has  past  away.  "We  have  a  witness  for  this 
fact  in  our  own  language,  where  'antique'  and 
*  antic '  are  but  two  different  spellings  of  one  and 
the  same  word.  There  lies  often  in  dp^cdo^  this 
sense  superadded  of  old-world  fashion;  now  not 
merely  antique,  but  antiquated  and  out  of  date 
(-^schylus.  Prom.  V.  325;  Aristophanes,  Plut. 
323) ;  and  still  more  strongly  in  dp'^aioTT]'^,  which 
has  no  other  meaning  but  this  (Plato,  Legg.  ii. 
657  V). 

But  while  dpx^lo^  goes  off  in  this  direction  (we 
have,  indeed,  no  instance  in  the  IST.  T.),  ircCKaid^ 
diverges  in  another,  of  which  the  I^.  T.  usage  will 
supply  a  large  number  of  examples.  That  which 
has  existed  long  has  been  exposed  to,  and  in  many 
cases  will  have  suffered  from,  the  wrongs  and  in- 
juries of  time ;  it  will  be  old  in  the  sense  of  more 
or  less  worn  out;  and  it  is  always  TraXato?,  never 
dpxcuo^i  which  is  employed  to  express  old  in  such 
a   sense   as    this.*     Thus    IfidrLov   irdXaibv   (Matt. 

*  The  same  lies,  or  may  lie,  in  '  vetus,'  as  witnesses  Tertullian's 


S6  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

ix.  16) ;  aaKol  iraXaLol  (Matt.  ix.  17) ;  so  aaKov<i 
TraXaiov^  koX  KaTepf)coy6Ta<i  (Josh.  ix.  10) ;  TraXaia 
pciKT]  (Jer.  xlv.  11).  lu  the  same  way,  while  ol 
dpxa^oL  could  never  express  the  old  men  of  a  living 
generation  as  compared  with  the  young  of  the 
same,  ol  iraXaLol  continually  bears  this  sense  ;  thus 
vio<;  '^6  iraXavo^  (Homer,  II.  xiv.  108,  and  often) ; 
TToXverer?  koX  TraXaioi  (Philo,  De  Yit.  Cont.  8  ;  cf. 
Job  XV.  10).  It  is  the  same  with  the  words  formed 
on  iraXaio^ :  thus  Heb.  viii.  13  :  to  Be  iraXaiovixevov 
Kol  yrjpdcTKov,  €771)9  d(f)avca-/jLov ;  cf.  Heb.  i.  11  ; 
Luke  xii.  33 ;  Eeclus.  xiv.  IT ;  while  Plato  joins 
iraXaioTTj^i  and  crairpoTT}^  together  {Bep.  x.  609  e ; 
cf.  Aristophanes,  JPlut.  1086 :  rpv^  iraXaia  koX 
craTTpd).  As  often  as  iraXam  is  employed  to  con- 
note this  worn  out,  or  wearing  out,  by  age,  it  will 
absolutely  demand  Kaivb^  as  its  opposite  (Mark  ii. 
21 ;  Heb.  viii.  13),  as  it  will  also  sometimes  have  it 
on  other  occasions  (Herod,  ix.  26,  his) ;  when  this 
does  not  lie  in  the  word,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
i/eo9  being  set  over  against  it  (Lev.  xxvi.  10  ;  Homer, 
Od.  ii.  293;  Plato,  CratyUs,  418  J;  JEschylus, 
Eicmenides^  778,  808) ;  and  Kaiv6<^  against  dpxalo^ 
(2  Cor.  V.  17;  Philo,  JDe  Vit.  Con.  10). 

pregnant  antithesis  {Adv.  Marc.  i.  8) :  '  Deus  si  est  vetus,  non  erit ; 
si  est  Dovus,  non  fuit.' 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  87 


§  xviii. — l3cofji6<;,  Ovcnaa-Trjpiov, 

1  HAVE  noticed  elsewliere,  in  dealing  with  the 
words  7rpo(j)r}T€vco  and  /jiavTevo/jLac  {Syno'/iyms  of  the 
iT.  T.^  part  I.  §  yi.),  the  accuracy  with  which  in 
several  instances  the  lines  of  demarcation  between 
the  "sacred  and  profane,  between  the  true  religion 
and  the  false,  are  maintained  in  the  words  which 
are  severally  appropriated  to  each,  and  not  per- 
mitted to  be  promiscuously  used  for  the  one  and 
for  the  other  alike.  We  have  another  example  of 
this  same  j)recision  here,  in  the  fact  of  the  constant 
use  in  the  IT.  T.  of  OvaiacrTripioVj  occurring  as  it 
does  more  than  twenty  times,  for  the  altar  of  the 
true  God,  while  on  the  one  occasion  when  a  heathen 
altar  has  need  to  be  named  (Acts  xvii.  23)  the  word 
is  changed,  and  ^(Ofios  in  the  place  of  Oua-iacrTijpiov 
is  employed. 

But  indeed  this  distinction  is  common  to  all 
sacred  and  ecclesiastical  Greek,  both  to  that  which 
goes  before,  and  that  which  follows,  the  writings 
of  the  l^ew  Covenant.  Thus  so  resolute  were  the 
Septuagint  Translators  to  mark  the  distinction 
between  the  altars  of  the  true  God  and  those  on 
which  abominable  things  were  offered,  that  there 
is  every  reason  to  think  they  invented  the  word 


88  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

OvcnacTTrjpiov  for  the  purpose  of  maintainiDg  this 
distinction;  being  indeed  herein  more  nice  than 
the  inspired  Hebrew  Scriptures  themselves,  in 
which  n?]^  does  duty  for  the  one  and  for  the  other 
(Lev.  i.  9 ;  Isai.  xvii.  8).  I  need  hardly  observe 
that  Ovcnacmfjpiovy  j)i'operly  the  neuter  of  dvaiO' 
G-Ti]pLo^y  as  Lkaa-TYjpLov  (Exod.  xxv.  17;  Ileb.  ix.  5) 
of  l\acrTrjpio<^,  nowhere  occurs  in  classical  Greek ; 
and  it  is  this  fact  of  its  having  been  coined  by  the 
Septuagint  Translators  one  must  suppose  that  Philo 
has  in  mind  when  he  affirms  that  Moses  invented 
the  word  {De  Yit  Mos.  iii.  10).  At  the  same  time 
the  writers  of  the  Septuagint  do  not  themselves 
invariably  observe  this  distinction.  Thus  there  are 
four  occasions,  two  in  the  Second  Book  of  Mac- 
cabees (ii.  20 ;  xiii.  8),  and  two  in  Ecclesiasticus 
(1.  13, 16),  where  ySw/zo?  is  used  of  the  altar  of  the 
true  God ;  these  two  Books  however,  it  must  be 
remembered,  hellenize  very  much  ;  it  is  employed 
in  like  manner  occasionally  by  Philo,  thus  De  Vit. 
Mos.  iii.  29:  and  OvaiacmjpLov  is  sometimes  used 
of  an  idol  altar ;  thus  Judg.  ii.  2 ;  vi.  25  ;  2  Kin. 
xvi.  10;,  and  in  other  places.  Still  these  are  quite 
the  rare  exceptions,  and  sometimes  the  antago- 
nism between  the  words  comes  out  with  the  most 
marked  emphasis.  It  does  so,  for  example,  at  1 
Mace.  i.  59_,  where  the  historian  recounts  how  the 
servants  of  Antiochus  offered  sacrifices  to  Olympian 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  89 

Jove  on  the  altar  whicli  had  been  built  over  the 
altar  of  the  God  of  Israel :  Gvcnd^ovre^  cttI  tov 
^cofjiov,  bi  Tjv  iirl  tov  OvatacTTrjpLov.  Our  Trans- 
lators here  are  put  to  their  shifts,  and  are  obliged 
to  render  ySw/zo?  '  idol  altar,'  and  OvcnaarripLov 
'  altar.'  In  the  Latin,  of  course,  there  is  no  such 
difficulty ;  for  at  a  very  early  day  the  Church 
adopted  '  altare '  as  the  word  expressive  of  her 
altar,  and  assigned  '  ara '  exclusively  to  heathen 
uses.  Thus  Cyprian  {Ep.  63)  expresses  his  wonder 
at  the  profa«e  boldness  of  one  of  the  '  thifrificati,' 
or  those  who  in  time  of  persecution  had  consented 
to  save  their  lives  by  burning  incense  before  a 
heathen  idol, — that  he  should  afterwards  have 
dared,  without  having  obtained  the  Church's  for- 
giveness, to  continue  his  ministry — '  quasi  post 
aras  diaboli  accedere  ad  altare  Dei  fas  sit.'  I  said 
the  distinction  between  ^co/jlo^;  and  dvaiaa-TtjpLoVf 
first  established  in  the  Septuagint,  and  recognized  in 
the  X.  T.,  was  afterwards  observed  in  ecclesiastical 
Greek ;  for  tlie  Church  has  still  her  6va-[a  alvecreoy<; 
(Heb.  xiii.  15)  and  her  Ovcrla  avafjLvr}(Te(o<;,  or  rather 
her  dvdfjiV7](TL<;  6vala<;,  and  therefore  her  OvcrLaarrj' 
pLov  still.  Tliis  may  be  seen  in  the  following  pas- 
sage of  Chrysostom  {In  1  Fp.  ad  Cor.  Horn.  24),  in 
which  Christ  is  assumed  to  be  speaking:  wo-re  d 
aifiaTo^  iindv/JbeUy  firj  tov  tcov  elBcoXcov  ^cdjxov  tc3 
rSiv   dXoycov  ^ovMy  oKKa  to  OvcLaaTrjpiov  to   i/Mov 


90  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

T(p  ijJL(p  <l>oivLaa6  aL/xari.  Compare  Mede,  Works, 
1672,  p.  391 ;  and  Augusti,  ITandbuch  d.  Christl, 
Archceol.  vol.  i.  p.  412. 


§  xix. — fxeravoico,  /JLeTafxiXo/xai. 

It  is  a  frequent  statement  of  our  early  theo- 
logians that  fierdvoia  and  /xera/jLeXeia,  with  their 
several  verbs,  ixeravoetv  and  /LLera/JLeXea-dat,  are  used 
with  this  distinction,  that  where  it  is  intended  to 
express  the  mere  desire  that  the  done  miglit  be 
undone,  accompanied  with  regrets  or  even  with 
remorse,  but  w^ith  no  effective  change  of  heart, 
there  the  latter  words  are  employed ;  but  where  a 
true  change  of  heart  toward  God,  there  the  former. 
It  was  Beza,  I  think,  who  first  strongly  urged  this 
difference  between  the  words.  He  was  followed 
by  many;  thus  see  Spanheim,  Duh.  Evang.  vol. 
iii.  dub.  9 ;  and  Chillingworth  {Sermons  hefore 
CJiarles  I.  p.  11) :  ^  To  this  purpose  it  is  worth  the 
observing,  that  when  the  Scripture  speaks  of  that 
kind  of  repentance,  which  is  only  sorrow  for  some- 
thing done,  md  wishing  it  undone,  it  constantly 
useth  tho  word  /lera/jiiXeia,  to  which  forgiveness  of 
sins  h  nowhere  promised.  So  it  is  written  of  Judas 
th'  son  of  perdition.  Matt,  xxvii.  3,  fierafieXTjOeU 
3/     Tpeyfre,  he  repented  and  went  and  hanged  him- 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  91 

self,  and  so  constantly  in  other  places.  But  that  re- 
pentance to  wliicli  remission  of  sins  and  salvation 
is  promised,  is  perpetually  expressed  by  the  word 
fierdvoca,  which  signilieth  a  thorough  change  of  the 
heart  and  soul,  of  the  life  and  actions.' 

Let  me,  before  proceeding  further,  correct  a 
slight  inaccuracy  in  this  statement.  MerafjiiXeLa 
nowhere  occurs  in  the  JST.  T. ;  only  once,  if  we  may 
trust  Trommius,  in  the  Old  (Hos.  xi.  8).  So  far  as 
we  deal  with  I^ew  Testament  synonyms,  it  is  pro- 
perly between  the  verbs  alone  that  the  comparison 
can  be  instituted  and  a  distinction  sought  to  be 
drawn ;  though,  indeed,  what  is  good  of  them  will 
be  good  of  their  substantives  as  well.  The  state- 
ment will  need  also  a  certain  qualification,  as  will 
presently  appear.  Jeremy  Taylor  allows  this.  His 
words — they  occur  in  his  great  treatise,  On  the 
Doctrine  and  Practice  of  Rej^enta/nce^  ch.  ii.  §  1,  2 
— are  as  follows :  '  The  Greeks  use  two  words  to 
express  this  duty,  fieTafieXeia  and  ixerdvoia.  Mera- 
^ekeia  is  from  /jLerafieXeladai,  post  factum  angi  et 
cruciari,  to  be  afflicted  in  mind,  to  be  troubled  for 
our  former  folly ;  it  is  Bvaapiarr/crc^  eVt  ireirpa- 
7yu,eVot?,  saith  Phavorinus,  a  being  displeased  for 
what  we  have  done,  and  it  is  generally  used  fca-  all 
sorts  of  repentance ;  but  more  properly  to  signify 
either  the  beginning  of  a  good,  or  the  whole  state 
of  an  ineffective,  repentance.    In  the  first  sense  we 


92  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

find  it  ill  St.  Matthew,  vjieh  he  lS6vTe<;  ov  fiere- 
jjLeX.')]67]T6  varepov  rov  inarevaai  avTu>,  and  ye,  see- 
ing, did  not  repent  tliat  ye  miglit  believe  Him.  Of 
tlie  second  sense  we  liave  an  example  in  Judas, 
fieTafie\7]6€c<;  airearpe'y^re,  he  ''  repented "  too,  but 
the  end  of  it  was  he  died  with  anguish  and  de- 
spair. .  .  .  There  is  in  this  repentance  a  sorrow 
for  what  is  done,  a  disliking  of  the  thing  with  its 
consequents  and  effect,  and  so  far  also  it  is  a  change 
of  mind.  But  it  goes  no  further  than  so  far  to 
change  the  mind  that  it  brings  trouble  and  sorrow, 
and  such  things  as  are  the  natural  events  of  it.  .  .  . 
When  there  was  a  difference  made,  puerdvoLa  was 
the  better  word,  which  does  not  properly  signify 
the  sorrow  for  having  done  amiss,  but  something 
that  is  nobler  than  it,  but  brought  in  at  the  gate  of 
Borrow.  For  17  Kara  Seov  XiiTrrj,  a  godly  sorrow, 
that  is  fierafjbiXeta,  or  the  first  beginning  of  repent- 
ance, /Jberdvocap  KaTcpyd^erat,  worketh  this  better 
repentance,  fjLerdvoLav  dfieTafiiXrjrov  and  ek  acorr}- 
piav.^  Presently,  however,  he  admits  that  *  how- 
ever the  grammarians  may  distinguish  them,  yet 
the  words  are  used  promiscuously,'  and  that  it  is 
impossible  to  draw  so  rigid  a  line  of  distinction 
between  them  as  some  have  attempted  to  do.  Tliis 
to  a  considerable  extent  is  true,  yet  not  so  true  but 
that  a  predominant  use  of  one  and  of  the  other  can 
very  clearly  be  traced. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  93 

Meravoelv  is  properly  known  after^  as  irpovoeiv 
to  know  before,  and  fierdvoLa  after  or  later  know- 
ledge, as  TTpovoca  foreknowledge ;  which  is  well 
brought  out  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Strom. 
ii.  6) :  el  e<l>  oU  rffiaprev  /ji6Tev67]<76v,  el  (Tvvecnv 
eXa^ev  i^^  oh  eTTTataev,  Koi  fJieTeyvco,  oirep  ia-n, 
fiera  ravra  eyvco  '  fipaBela  yap  yvcoaL';,  /jLerdvota. 
At  its  next  step  iierdvoia  signifies  the  change  of 
mind  consequent  on  this  after-knowledge.  At  its 
third,  regret  for  the  course  pursued,  resulting  from 
the  change  of  mind  consequent  on  this  after-know- 
ledge ;  '  passio  qusedam  animi  quae  veniat  de  ofi*ensa 
sententise  prioris,'  as  TertuUian  (JDe  Pcenit.  1)  af- 
firms, was  all  that  the  heathen  understood  by  it. 
At  this  stage  of  its  meaning  it  is  found  connected 
with  h7)yii6<i  (Plutarch,  Quom.  Am,  ab  Adiil.  12). 
Last  of  all  it  signifies  change  of  conduct  for  the 
future,  springing  from  all  this.  There  is  not  of 
necessity  any  ethical  meaning  in  the  word  in  any 
of  these  stages  of  meaning — the  change  of  mind, 
and  of  action  upon  this  following,  may  be  for  the 
worse  as  well  as  for  the  better;  thus  Plutarch 
(Sejpt.  Sap.  Conv.  21)  tells  us  of  two  murderers, 
who,  having  spared  a  child,  afterwards  '  repented ' 
{jierevoTjaav)  and  sought  to  slay  it;  fiera/jieXeia  is 
used  by  him  in  the  same  sense  of  a  repenting  of 
good  {De  Ser.  Num.  Yin.  11);  so  that  here  also 
Tertullian  had  right  in  his  complaints  {De  Poenit 


94:  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

1) :  '  Quam  autern  in  pcenitentise  actu  irrationaliter 
deversentur  [etLnici],  vel  Tino  isto  satis  erit  expe- 
dire,  cum  illam  etiam  in  bonis  actis  suis  adhibent. 
Poenitet  fidei,  amoris,  simplicitatis,  patientiae,  mise- 
ricordise,  prout  quid  in  ingratiam  cecidit.'  The  re- 
gret may  be,  and  often  is,  quite  unconnected  with 
tlie  sense  of  any  wrong  done,  of  the  violation  of  any 
moral  law,  may  be  simply  what  our  fathers  were 
wont  to  call  ^  hadiwist '  {had-I-wist  better,  I  should 
have  acted  otherwise) ;  thus  see  Plutarch,  De  Lib, 
Ed.  14 ;  Sejpt.  Sap.  Conv.  12;  De  Soler.  Anim.  3  : 
XviTT)  Bl  aXyrjBovo^;,  rjv  fierdvotav  ovofjLa^ofiev,  '  dis- 
pleasure with  oneself,  proceeding  from  pain,  which 
we  call  repentance  '  (Holland).  That  it  had  some- 
times, though  rarely,  an  ethical  meaning,  none 
would  of  course  deny,  in  which  sense  Plutarch  {Z>e 
Ser.  Num,  Yin.  6)  has  a  passage  in  w^onderful  har- 
mony with  Pom.  ii.  4. 

It  is  only  after  fierdvoia  has  been  taken  up  into 
the  uses  of  Scripture,  or  of  writers  dependent  on 
Scripture,  that  it  comes  predominantly  to  mean  a 
change  of  mind,  taking  a  wiser  view  of  the  past, 
<TvvaLcr6Tjai,<;  i|ru;j^7j?  icj)  oh  eirpa^ev  aroTrot?  (Pha- 
vorinus),  a  regret  for  the  ill  done  in  that  past,  and 
out  of  all  this  a  change  of  life  for  the  better.  This 
is  all  imported  into,  does  not  etymologically  nor 
yet  by  primary  usage  lie  in,  the  word.  JN'ot  very 
frequent  in  the  Septiiagint  (yet  see  Ecclus.  xliv.  15  ; 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  95 

Wisd.  xi.  24: ;  xii.  10,  19 ;  and  for  the  verb,  Jer. 
viii.  6),  it  is  frequent  in  Pliilo,  who  joins  fierdvoia 
with  /3€\Tlco(7i<i  {De  Ahrah.  3),  explaining  it  as 
irpo^  TO  fiekTiov  i)  ^era^oXrj  (ibid,  and  Z>e  Poen.  2) ; 
while  in  the  IS".  T.  fieravoeLv  and  fierdvota  are  never 
used  in  other  than  an  ethical  sense.  It  is  singular 
how  seldom  they  occur  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul, 
fxeravoelv  only  once,  and  fjuerdvoLa  not  more  than 
four  times. 

But  while  thus  fieravoelv  and  fierdvoia  gradually 
advanced  in  depth  and  fulness  of  meaning,  till  they 
became  the  fixed  and  recognized  words  to  express 
that  mighty  change  in  mind,  heart  and  life  wrought 
by  the  Spirit  of  God ;  '  such  a  virtuous  alteration 
of  the  mind  and  purpose  as  begets  a  like  vii-tuous 
change  in  the  life  and  practice '  (Kettlewell)  as  we 
call  repentance ;  the  like  honour  was  very  partially 
vouchsafed  to  fierafjieXeia  and  fieTa/jLeXea-Oac.  The 
first,  explained  by  Plutarch  as  r/  iwl  raU  yBovaU, 
ocrai  irapdvojioL  kol  uKparel^;,  ala-'yvvT)  {JDe  Gen.  Soc. 
22),  associated  by  him  with  /SapvOvfiLa  {An  Yit.  ad 
Inf.  2),  by  Plato  with  rapaxn  ifiep.  ix.  577  e\  has 
been  noted  as  never  occurring  in  the  InT.  T.  ;  the 
second  only  ^yq^  times;  and  on  one  of  these  to 
designate  the  sorrow  of  this  world  which  worketh 
death,  of  Judas  Iscariot  (Matt,  xxvii.  3),  and  on 
another  expressing  not  the  repentance  of  men,  but 
of  God  (Heb.  vii.  21) ;  and  this  while -/lerarota  oc- 


96  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

curs  some  "Rve  and  twenty,  and  ixeravoelv  some  five 
and  thirty  times.  Those  who  deny  that  either  in 
profane  or  sacred  Greek  any  traceable  difference 
existed  between  the  w^ords  are  able  in  the  former 
to  point  to  passages  where  fierafieXeLa  is  nsed  in  all 
those  senses  which  have  been  here  claimed  for 
fLerdvoca,  to  others  where  the  two  are  employed  as 
convertible  terms,  and  both  to  express  remorse 
(Pint arch,  De  Tranq.  Anim.  19) ;  in  the  latter  to 
passages  in  the  IST.  T.  where  fieraiJLeXeaOai  implies 
all  that  fieravoeLv  w^ould  have  implied  (Matt.  xxi. 
29,  32).  But  all  this  freely  admitted,  there  does 
remain,  both  in  sacred  and  profane  use,  a  very  dis- 
tinct preference  for  fierdvoia  as  the  expression  of 
the  nobler  repentance.  This  we  might,  indeed, 
have  expected  beforehand,  from  the  relative  ety- 
mological value  of  the  w^ords.  He  who  has 
changed  his  mind  about  the  past  is  in  the  way  to 
change  everything ;  he  who  has  an  after  care  may 
have  nothing  but  a  selfish  dread  of  the  conse- 
quences of  what  he  has  done;  so  that  the  long 
debate  on  the  relation  of  these  w^ords  with  one 
another  may  be  summed  up  in  the  words  of  Een- 
gel,  which  seem  to  me  to  express  the  exact  truth 
of  the  matter;  allowing  a  difference,  but  not  urging 
it  too  far  (Gnomon  JST.  T. ;  2  Cor.  vii.  10) :  '  Yi 
etymi  fjuerdvoLa  proprie  est  mentis,  fierafjueXeLa  vo- 
luntatis ;  quod  ilia  sententiam,  hsec  solicitudinem 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  97 

vel  potius  stiidium  mutatum  dicat Utnimque 

ergo  dicitur  de  eo,  qnem  facti  consiliive  poenitet,  sive 
poenitentia  bona  sit  sive  mala,  sive  malse  rei  sive 
bonse,  sive  cum  mutatione  actionum  in  postermn, 
Eive  citra  eam.  Yeruntamen  si  usmn  spectes,  fiera- 
fiekeia  plerunque  est  iieaov  vocabnlum,  et  refertur 
potissimum  ad  actiones  singulares  :  ^erdvoia  vero, 
in  N.  T.  praesertim,  in  bonam  partem  sumitm*,  quo 
notatur  poenitentia  totius  vitse  ipsorumque  nostri 
quodammodo :  sive  tota  ilia  beata  mentis  post  erro- 
rem  et  peceata  reminiscentia,  cum  omnibus  affecti- 
bus  eam  ingredientibus,  quam  fructus  digni  sequun- 
tur.  Hinc  fit  ut  fieravoeiv  ssepe  in  imperativo 
ponatur,  fieTafjLekelo-Oat  nunquam:  ceteris  autem 
locis,  ubicunque  fjuerdvoLa  legitur,  fierafiekeLav  possis 
Bubstituere  :  sed  non  contra.' 


§  XX. — jMop^ri,  (Tyriyia,  IBia, 

Mop<j)i]  is  *  form,'  '  forma,'  '  gestalt ; '  a-xvf^a  is 
^  fashion,'  '  habitus,'  '  figur ; '  IBia,  '  appearance,' 
*  species.'  The  first  two,  which  occur  not  unfre- 
quently  together  (Plutarch,  Symjp.  viii.  2,  3),  are 
objective;  for  the  form  and  fashion  of  a  thing 
would  exist,  were  it  alone  in  the  universe,  and 
whether  there  were  any  to  behold  it  or  no.  The 
other  is  subjective,  the  appearance  of  a  thing  ijft' 
6 


98  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

plying  some  to  wliom  this  appearance  is  made; 
there  must  needs  be  a  seer  before  there  can  be  a 
seen. 

To  consider  in  the  first  place  the  distinction 
between  fJiop<j)rj  and  o-'xtii^cl.  The  passage  in  which 
we  may  best  study  this  distinction,  and  at  the  same 
time  appreciate  its  importance,  is  that  great  doc- 
trinal passage  in  the  Philippians  (ii.  6 — 8),  where 
St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Son  of  God  before  his  Incar- 
nation as  subsisting  "  in  the  form  of  God  "  (eV  jjuop- 
^fi  Geov  vTrdpxoyv),  as  assuming  at  his  Incarnation 
"  the  for7n  of  a  servant "  (jjLopcprjv  EovXov  XajScov)^ 
and  after  his  Incarnation  and  during  his  walk  upon 
earth  as  "  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man  "  {o-xn- 
^lan  evpeOeU  g)9  av9pa>7ros;).  It  was  the  custom  of 
the  Fathers  to  urge  the  first  phrase,  iv  /J-op^fj  Oeov 
vTrapx^ov,  against  the  Arians,  and  the  Lutherans 
did  the  same  against  the  Socinians,  as  a  '  dictum 
probans'  of  the  absolute  divinity  of  the  Son  of 
God  ;  that  is,  they  affirmed  f^op^i]  here  to  be  equi- 
valent to  ovo-M  or  <f)vai^.  This  asserted  equivalence 
cannot,  however,  as  is  now  generally  acknowledged, 
be  maintained.  Doubtless  there  does  lie  in  the 
words  a  proof  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  but  im- 
plicitly and  not  explicitly.  Mop(\>r)  is  not  =  ovaLa  : 
at  the  same  time  none  could  be  iv  p^opcfiTJ  Qeov  who 
was  not  God,  as  is  well  put  by  Bengel :  '  Forma 
Dei  non  est  natura  divina,  sed  tamen  is  qui  in  form4 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  99 

Dei  extabat,  Deus  est ; '  and  this  because  fiop(prj, 
like  the  Latin  ^  forma,'  the  German  ^  gestalt,'  sig- 
nifies the  form  as  it  is  the  utterance  of  the  inner 
life ;  not  being,  but  manner  of  being,  or  better  still, 
manner  of  existence ;  and  only  God  could  have  the 
manner  of  existence  of  God.  But  He  who  had  thus 
been  from  eternity  iv  /J'Op(f>fj  Oeov,  took  at  his  Incar- 
nation /jLop(j)r]v  BovXov.  The  verity  of  his  taking 
of  our  flesh  is  herein  implied ;  there  was  nothing 
docetic,  nothing  imaginary  about  it.  His  manner 
of  existence  was  now  that  of  a  BovXo^;,  that  is,  of  a 
BovXo^  Tov  Geov :  for  with  all  our  Lord's  humilia- 
tions He  was  never  a  Bov\o<;  dvdpcoTrcov ;  their  Sid- 
Kovo<i  He  may  have  been,  and  from  time  to  time 
eminently  was  (John  xiii.  4,  5  ;  Matt.  xx.  28),  this 
is  part  of  his  raTreivcocnf;  mentioned  in  the  next 
verse ;  but  their  Sov\o<;  never.  It  was  with  respect 
of  God  He  so  emptied  Himself  of  his  glory,  that, 
from  that  manner  of  existence  in  which  He  thought 
it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,  He  became  his 
servant. 

The  next  clause,  ''  and  being  found  in  fashion 
{a-'x/ifiari)  as  a  man,"  is  very  instructive  for  the  dis- 
tinguishing of  crxvf^^  from  iJLop(j)7].  The  verity  of 
the  Son's  Incarnation  was  expressed  in  the  fjLopcprjv 
BovKov  \al3cov.  These  words  which  follow  do  but 
express  the  outward  facts  which  came  under  the 
knowledge  of  his  fellow-men,  with  therefore  an  em- 


100  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

phasis  on  evpe6ei<i :  He  was  by  men  found  in  fashion 
as  a  man,  the  o-xvi^^  here,  signifying  his  whole  out- 
ward presentation,  as  Bengel  puts  it  well :  *  ^xVf^^» 
habitus,  cultus,  vestitus,  victus,  gestus,  sermones  et 
actiones.'  In  none  of  these  did  there  appear  any 
difference  between  Him  and  the  other  children  of 
men.  ^%^/^a  is  the  outline,  as  Plutarch  {De  Plac. 
Phil.  14)  describes  it :  IgtIv  ein^avua  kcli  Trepc- 
ypa^T}  Kol  irepa^  aco/jiaro^. 

The  distinction  between  the  words  comes  out 
very  clearly  in  the  compound  verbs  (xeraa-xnt^o.' 
Ti^eiv  and  fxeTaixop<^ovv.  Thus  if  I  were  to  change 
a  Dutch  garden  into  an  Italian,  this  would  be 
fjL6Ta(Txn/^^'^i'^l^o^ '  hut  if  I  were  to  transform  a 
garden  into  something  wholly  different,  say  a  gar- 
den into  a  city,  this  would  be  /lera/jLopcfxocrt^.  It 
is  possible  for  Satan  fjLeraa-xvf^^T^^^''^  himself  into 
an  angel  of  light  (2  Cor.  xi.  14) ;  he  can  take  all  the 
outward  semblance  of  such ;  the  pbeTafMopcpovaOai, 
would  be  impossible ;  it  would  involve  an  inward- 
ness of  change,  a  change  not  external  but  mternal, 
not  of  accidents  but  of  essence,  which  lies  quite 
beyond  his  power.  How  fine  and  subtle  is  the 
variation  of  words  at  Rom.  xii.  2 ;  though  '  con- 
formed '  and  '  trsinsformed '  *   in   our   Translation 

^  The  Authorized  Version  is  the  first  which  uses  '  transformed ' 
here.  "Wiclif  and  the  Rheims,  both  following  closely  the  Vulgate, 
*  transfigured,'  and  the  intermediate  Reformed  Versions,   *  changed 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  101 

liaye  failed  adequately  to  represent  it.  '  Do  not 
fall  in,'  says  the  Apostle,  'with  the  fleeting  fashions 
of  this  world,  nor  be  yourselves  fashioned  to  them 
{jir]  avaxvf^ciTL^eaOe),  but  undergo  a  deep  abiding 
change  (aWa  /i6Ta/jLop(j)ovo-6e)  by  the  renewing  of 
your  mind,  such  as  the  Spirit  of  God  alone  can 
work  in  you  (2  Cor.  iii.  18).'  Theodoret,  comment- 
ing on  these  words,  calls  particular  attention  to  this 
variation  of  the  word  used,  a  variation  which  it 
would  task  the  highest  skill  of  the  English  scholar 
adequately  to  reproduce  in  his  own  language. 
Among  much  else  which  is  interesting,  he  says: 
^EhChacTKev  oaov  7r/309  ra  irapovra  t^9  apex?}?  to 
Bcd<j)opov '  ravra  yap  eKoXeae  a^V/ia,  rrjv  dperrjv  Be 
fjLOpc^rjV  '  rj  fiop^r]  Se  d\7]6a)V  Trpayfjudrcov  <T7)fiavTLKrj, 
TO  Be  a')(fj/jLa  evBidXvrov  'x^prj/ia.  Meyer  perversely 
enough,  'Beide  Worte  stehen  im  Gegensatze  nur 
durch  die  Prapositionen,  ohne  differenz  des  Stamm- 
Yerba  ; '  and  compare  Fritzsche,  iii  loc.  One  can 
understand  a  commentator  overlooking,  but  scarcely 
one  denying,  the  significance  of  this  change.  For 
the  very  different  uses  of  the  words,  see  Plutarch, 
Quom.  Adid.  ah  Amio.  7,  in  which  chapter  both 
occur. 

At  the  resurrection  Christ  /j.eracrxvH'^'^^^^^  the 

into  the  fashion  of.'  If  the  distinctions  I  am  here  seeking  to  draw 
are  correct,  and  if  they  stand  good  in  English  as  well  as  Greek, 
*  transformed '  is  not  the  word. 


102  SYNONYMS    OF  THE 

bodies  of  liis  saints  (Phil.  iii.  21 ;  cf.  1  Cor.  xv. 
53),  on  wliicli  saying  Calov  remarks,  *Ille  fiera- 
(jy7]lxaTi(Tyi.b^  non  siibstanticdem  mutationem,  sed 
accidentalem,  non  ratione  quidditatis  corjDoris  nos- 
tri,  sed  ratione  qualitatum^  salva  qnidditate,  im- 
portat ; '  bnt  tlie  changes  of  heathen  deities  into 
wholly  other  shapes  are  /jLeTafjLopcj)ot)crec<;,  In  the 
fieTaaxniJ^ciTLo-ixo^  there  is  transition,  bnt  no  abso- 
lute solution  of  continuity.  The  butterfly,  pro- 
phetic image  of  our  resurrection,  is  immeasurably 
more  beautiful  than  the  grub,  yet  has  been  duly 
unfolded  from  it ;  but  when  Proteus  changes  him- 
self into  a  flame,  a  wild  beast,  a  running  stream 
(Yirgil,  Georg.  iv.  442),  each  of  these  disconnected 
with  all  that  went  before,  there  is  then  not  a 
change  merely  of  the  Gyr^ia,  but  of  the  fiopcj)^. 
All  the  conditions  of  our  Lord's  own  body  under- 
went so  wonderful  an  alteration  at  the  Eesurrection 
that  we  must  not  wonder  to  hear  that  after  this 
He  appeared  to  his  disciples  iv  erepa  fJLopcprj  (Mark 
xvi.  12),  though  that  phrase  seems  at  first  to  exj)ress 
more  even  than  that  change  would  have  involved. 
It  is  only,  however,  in  keeping  with  the  fierefxap- 
(j^coOrj  of  Matt.  xvii.  2  ;  Mark  ix.  2 ;  this  change 
upon  the  Mount  being  a  prophetic  anticipation  of 
that  which  should  be. 

The  fMop(l}7j  then,  it  may  be  assumed,  is  of  the 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  103 

essence  of  a  thing ; '  we  cannot  conceive  of  the 
thing  as  apart  from  this  its  formality,  to  use 
'  formality '  in  its  old  logical  sense ;  the  crxw^  is 
of  its  accident,  having  to  do  not  with  the  '  qnid- 
ditas,'  bnt  the  ^  qualitas,'  and,  however  it  may 
change,  leaving  the  '  quidditas '  nntonched,  the 
thing  itself  essentially  or  formally  the  same  as  it 
was  before ;  as  one  has  said,  fj^op^rj  ^va-ew^,  ayrnia 
e|e(»9 :  thus  (ryriiia  pacrCkiKov  (Lncian,  Pise.  35)  is 
the  whole  outward  array  and  adornment  of  a  mon- 
arch— diadem,  tiara,  sceptre,  robe  (cf  his  Hermot. 
86) — all  which  he  might  lay  aside  and  remain  king 
notwithstanding.  It  in  no  sort  belougs  or  adheres 
to  the  man  as  a  part  .of  himself.  He  may  put  it  on, 
and  again  put  it  off.  Thus  Menander  (Meineke, 
Frag.  Com.  p.  985): 

irpaov  KaKovpyos  <rxvi^'  vireiffeKd^u  avrip 
KeKpvfMfxevT]  KCiTai  irayls  ToTy  TvK-qalou. 

Thus,  too,  the  (^xw^  '^^^  Koafiov  passes  away  (1  Cor. 
vii.  31),  the  image  being  here  probably  drawn  from 
the  shifting  scenes  of  a  theatre,  but  the  /cocryLto?  itself 
abides ;  there  is  no  reXo?  rov  /coct/jlov,  but  only  tov 
aicavo'^. 

*  *  La  forme  est  necessairement  en  rapport  avec  la  matifere  oa 
avec  le  fond.  La  figure  au  contraire  est  plus  independante  des  ob- 
jets ;  se  congoit  k  part '  (Lafaye,  Syn.  Franc,  p.  617). 


104  SYNONYMS  OF  THE 

There  is  so  far  a  corresponding  nse  in  Latin  of 
the  words  ^  forma  '  and  '  fignra,'  that  while  ^  figura 
formes '  occurs  not  rarely  ('  veterem  formce  servare 
figuram  /  '  and  cf.  Cicero,  Nat,  Deor.  i.  32),  '  forma 
figurse '  not  at  all  (see  Doderlein,  Latein,  Syn.  vol. 
ill.  p.  8Y).  Contrast  too  in  English  'deformed' 
and  '  disfigured.'  A  hunchback  is  '  deformed,'  a 
man  that  has  been  beaten  about  the  face  is  '  dis- 
figured ; '  one  is  for  life,  the  other  may  be  only  for 
a  few  days.  In  '  transformed '  and  '  transfigured ' 
it  is  easy  to  recognize  the  same  distinction.  There 
are  some  valuable  remarks  on  the  distinction  be- 
tween fiop(^r)  and  (TXV/^<^  ^^  The  Journal  of  Clas- 
sical and  Sacred  Philology,  '^o.  7,  pp.  113,  116, 
121. 

'ISea  occurs  only  once  in  the  E".  T.  (Matt,  xxviii. 
3).  Our  Translators  have  there  rendered  it  '  coun- 
tenance,' as  at  2  Mace.  iii.  16  '  face.'  It  is  not  a 
happy  translation ;  '  appearance '  would  have  been 
much  better ;  for  ISea  is  exactly  this,  '  species  sub 
oculos  cadens,'  not  the  thing  itself,  but  the  thing  as 
beholden ;  thus  Plato  {JRep.  ix.  588  c),  ifXaTre  iheav 
Orjpiov  itoikIXov,  fashion  to  thyself  the  image  of  a 
manifold  beast ;  so  IBea  rod  irpocrcaTroVy  the  look  of 
the  countenance  (Plutarch,  Pyrr.  3,  and  often),  Ihea 
KoXo^y  fair  to  look  on  (Pindar,  Olyinp.  xi.  122), 
Xiovo^  IBea,  the  appearance  of  snow  (Philo,  Quod 
Det.  Pot.  Pis.  48) ;  but  IBea  never  bears  the  mean- 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  106 

ing  wliicli  our  Translators  have  given  it;  rather 
that  which  Phitarch  ascribes  to  it  in  a  definition, 
of  which  all  the  earlier  parts  may  be  past  by,  as 
belonging  to  the  word  in  its  philosophic  use,  and 
of  which  the  last  clause  alone  concerns  us  here  {De 
JPlac.  Phil.  i.  9) :  i^ka  iarlv  ovarla  aaoofiaro^;,  avrrj 
fjilv  fJUT]  v^earoocra  KaO*  avTTjv,  elKOvl^ovaa  he  ra? 
afMopcjiov^;  v\a<;,  koX  alrla  ycvofj,6V7j  t?}?  tovtcov  Sei^eco^. 
The  word  in  all  its  uses  is  constant  to  the  definition 
of  this  last  clause,  and  to  the  iSelv  lying  at  its  own 
base ;  oftentimes  it  is  manifestly  so,  as  in  the  follow- 
ing quotation  from  Philo,  which  is  further  curious 
as  showing  how  widely  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos 
difiered  from  St.  John's,  was  in  fact  a  denial  of  it 
on  its  most  important  side  :  6  Be  virepavw  Tovrayv 
[rcav  ')(€povl3lfjL]  A6yo<;  delo^  eh  oparrjv  ov k  rjkdev 
ISeav  {De  Prof,  19).  On  the  distinction  between 
etSo9  and  IBka,  and  how  far  in  the  Platonic  philoso- 
phy there  is  a  distinction  between  them  at  all,  see 
Stallbaum's  note  on  Plato's  PepuhUc,  x.  596  5 ; 
Donaldson's  Cratylus^  3d  ed.  p.  105 ;  and  Professor 
Thompson's  note  on  Archer  Butler's  Lectures^  vol. 
ii.  p.  127. 


108  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 


§  XXI. — -vlry^t/co?,  arapKlKo^. 

Wvxi'Ko^  occurs  six  times  in  the  iN".  T. ;  on  three 
of  these  it  has  no  distinctly  ethical  meaning  attach- 
ed to  it ;  but  the  meanness  of  the  acojua  sjrvxi'/cov 
which  the  believer  now  bears  about  with  him  is 
contrasted  with  the  glory  of  the  spiritual  which  he 
shall  bear  (1  Cor.  xv.  44  his,  45).  On  the  other 
tliree  occasions  a  moral  emphasis  rests  on  the  word, 
and  always  a  most  depreciatory.  Thus  St.  Paul  de- 
clares the  '\jrvxi'fc6(;  receives  not  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  (1  Cor.  ii.  14) ;  St.  James  character- 
izes the  wisdom  which  is  -^vxi'icrj,  as  also  iTriyeio^ 
and  BaL/jLovc(oST]<;  (iii.  15) ;  St.  Jude  explains  the 
•ylrvx^LKOL  as  TTveu/xa  fjurj  e^ovre^  (ver.  19).  The  word 
nowhere  appears  in  the  Septuagint,  but  -^jrvxi'Km  in 
the  sense  of  '  heartily '  twice  (2  Mace.  iv.  37 ;  xiv. 
24). 

It  is  at  first  with  something  of  surprise  that  we 
find  ^Irvxi^Ko^  employed  in  these  senses,  and  keeping 
this  company ;  and  the  modern  fashion  of  talking 
about  the  soul,  as  though  it  were  the  highest  pai-t 
of  man,  does  not  make  this  surprise  the  less ;  for  it 
would  rather  lead  us  to  expect  to  find  it  grouped 
with  7rvev/jLaTi,K6<;,  as  though  there  were  only  light 
shades  of  difierence  between   them.     But  indeed 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  107 

this  is  characteristic  of  the  inner  differences  be- 
tween Christian  and  heathen,  and  indicative  of 
those  better  gifts  and  graces  which  the  Dispensa- 
tion af  the  Spirit  has  brought  into  the  world.  JPu- 
%tA:o9,  continually  used  as  the  highest  in  later  classi- 
cal Greek  literature — I  do  not  think  the  word  is 
older  than  Aristotle — being  there  opposed  to  crapKc- 
k6<;,  or  rather,  where  there  was  no  ethical  antithesis, 
to  G(xiixaTiKo<^  (Plutarch,  De  Plac.  Phil.  i.  9 ;  Aris- 
totle, Ethic.  Nic.  iii.  10.  2),  and  constantly  employ- 
ed in  praise  as  the  noblest  part  of  man  (Plutarch, 
Ne  Suav.  Vivi  sec.  Epic.  9  and  14),  must  come  down 
from  its  high  estate,  another  so  much  greater  than  it 
being  installed  in  the  chiefest  place  of  all ;  for  in- 
deed that  old  philosophy  knew  of  nothing  higher 
than  the  soul  of  man  ;  but  Revelation  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  and  of  that,  indwelliog  and  making  his 
habitation  with  men,  and  calling  out  an  answering 
spirit  in  them.  According  to  it  the  '^vxn>  no  less 
than  the  o-dp^y  belongs  to  the  lower  region  of  man's 
being  ;  and  if  a  double  use  of  "ylrvxn  in  Scripture  (as 
at  Matt.  xvi.  26  ;  Mark  viii.  35)  requires  a  certain 
caution  in  this  statement,  it  is  at  any  rate  plain  that 
yfrvxtKo^  is  not  a  word  of  honour '  any  more  than 

*  Hilary  has  not  quite,  however  nearly,  extricated  himself  from 
this  notion,  and  in  the  following  passage  certainly  ascribes  more  to 
the  ^vxiKos  than  the  Scriptures  do,  however  plainly  he  sets  him  in 
opposition  to  the  TrvevfictTiKSs  {Tract,  in  Ps.  xiv.  3) :  *  Apostolus  et 


108  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

a-apKtfc6<;,  and  is  an  epithet  quite  as  freely  applied  to 
this  lower.  The  'y^v')(iic6^  of  Scripture  is  one  for 
whom  tlie  "^vxn  is  the  highest  motive  power  of  life 
and  action ;  in  whom  the  irvevfia,  as  the  organ  of 
the  divine  Ilvev/ia,  is  suppressed,  dormant,  for  the 
time  as  good  as  extinct ;  whom  the  operation  of  this 
divine  Hvevfia  has  never  lifted  into  the  region  of 
spiritual  things  (Eom.  vii.  14 ;  viii.  1 ;  Jude  19). 
For  a  good  collection  of  passages  from  the  Greek 
Fathers  in  which  the  word  is  employed  in  this  sense, 
see  Suicer,  Thes,  s.  v. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  aapKCKOf;  and  the  '^vxi'- 
k6^  alike,  in  the  language  of  Scrij)ture,  stand  in  op- 
position to  the  7rveviJLaTCK6<i,  Both  epithets  ascribe 
to  him  concerning  whom  they  are  predicated  a  m- 
ling  principle  antagonistic  to  the  irvev/noi  though 
they  do  not  ascribe  the  same  antagonism.  "When 
St.  Paul  describes  the  Ephesians  as  "  fulfilling  the 

carnalem  [^ffapKiKSy]  hominem  posuit,  et  animalem  [^vx^Kdv]^  et  spiri- 
talem  [irvevixaTiKSu]  ;  carnalem,  belluse  modo  divina  et  humana  negli- 
gentem,  cujus  vita  corporis  famula  sit,  negotiosa  cibo,  somno,  libidine. 
Animalis  autem,  qui  ex  judicio  sensus  humani  quid  decens  honestum- 
que  sit,  sentiat,  atque  ab  omnibus  vitiis  animo  sue  auctore  so  referat, 
sue  proprio  sensu  utilia  et  honesta  dijudicans ;  ut  pecuniam  spernat, 
ut  jejuniis  parens  sit,  ut  ambitione  careat,  ut  voluptatibus  resistat. 
Spiritalis  autem  est,  cui  superiora  ilia  ad  Dominum  studia  sint,  et  hoc 
quod  agit,  per  scientiam  Dei  agat,  intelligens  et  cognoscens  quae  sit 
voluntas  Ejus,  et  sciens  quae  ratio  sit  a  Deo  carnis  assumptee,  qui 
crucis  triumphus,  quae  mortis  potestas,  quae  in  virtute  resurrectionia 
operatio.'    Compare  Irenaeus,  v.  6. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  109 

desires  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind''''  (Eplies.  ii.  3), 
ill  the  first  he  describes  them  as  aapKLKol,  in  the  se- 
cond as  yfrvxi'icoL  For,  indeed,  in  men  unregenerate 
there  are  two  forms  of  the  life  lived  apart  from  God ; 
and,  though  every  unregenerate  man  partakes  of 
both,  yet  in  some  one  is  more  predominant,  and  in 
some  the  other.  There  are  aapKiKol,  in  whom  the 
adp^  is  more  the  ruling  principle,  and  ylrvxi'/coh  in 
whom  the  '^vxn-  It  is  quite  true  that  crdpf  is  often 
used  in  Scripture  as  covering  the  entire  domain  in 
which  sin  springs  up  and  in  which  it  moves ;  thus 
the  epya  riy?  aapKo^  (Gal.  iv.  19 — 21)  are  not  merely 
those  sinful  works  that  are  wrought  in  and  through 
the  body,  but  those  which  move  in  the  sphere  and 
region  of  the  mind  as  well ;  more  than  one  half  of 
them  belong  to  the  latter  class.  Still  the  word, 
covering  at  times  the  whole  region  of  that  in  man 
which  is  alienated  from  God  and  from  the  life  in 
God,  must  accept  its  limitation  when  the  '^^vxn  is 
brought  in  to  claim  that  which  is  peculiarly  its 
own. 

There  is  an  admirable  discussion  on  the  differ- 
ence between  the  words,  in  Bishop  Eeynolds'  Latin 
sermon  preached  at  Oxford,  with  the  title  Animalis 
Homo,  I  quote  the  most  important  paragraph  bear- 
ing on  the  matter  in  hand :  '  Yerum  cum  homo  ex 
carne  et  anima  constet,  sitque  anima  pars  hominis 
prsestantior,   quamvis   ssepius   irregenitos,  propter 


110  SYNONYMS  OF  THE 

appetitum  in  vitia  pronum,  atque  prsecipites  con- 
cupiscentise  motus,  crdpKa  et  aapKiKov<i  Apostolus 
noster  appellet ;  liic  tamen  liujusmodi  homines  a 
prsestantiore  parte  clenominat,  ut  eos  se  intelligere 
ostendat,  non  qui  libidinis  mancipia  sunt,  et  crassis 
concupiscentiis  vel  nativum  lumen  obruunt,  (liu jus- 
modi  enim  homines  oKo^a  ^coa  vocat  Apostolus, 
2  Pet.  ii.  12),  sed  homines  sapientise  studio  deditos, 
et  qui  ea  sola,  quae  stulta  et  absurda  sunt,  rejicere 
Solent.  Hie  itaque  -x^f^i/cot  sunt  quotquot  to  irveviia 
ovK  exovao  (Jud.  10),  utcunque  alias  exquisitissimis 
naturae  dotibus  prsefulgeant,  utcunque  potissimam 
partem,  nempe  animam,  omnigena  eruditione  exco- 
lant,  et  rectissime  ad  prgescriptum  rationis  vitam 
dirigant.  Denique  eos  hie  '\^v')(^lkov<;  vocat,  quos 
supra  Sapientes,  Scribas,  Disquisitores,  et  istius 
seculi  principes  appellaverat,  ut  excludatur  quid- 
quid  est  nativse  aut  acquisitse  perfectionis,  quo  na- 
turae viribus  assurgere  possit  ratio  hum  ana.  "^vx^' 
k6<;,  6  TO  irav  tol<;  XoyccrfioL^  Trj<;  '^v^fj^  ScSov^;,  kol  fjurj 
vo/jll^cov  av(o6ev  Betcrdac  ^07jd€la<;,  ut  recte  Chrjsosto- 
mus :  qui  denique  nihil  in  se  eximium  habet,  prseter 
animam  rationalem,  cujus  solius  lucem  ductumque 
sequitur.'  I  add  a  few  words  of  Grotius  to  the  same 
effect  {Annott.  in  JSf.  T. ;  1  Cor.  ii.  14) :  '  Non  idem 
est  y{rvx''fio<;  dv9pco7ro<;  et  crapKLK6<;.  ^y;j^t/co9  est  qui 
humange  tantum  rationis  luce  ducitur,  aapKLKo^;  qui 
corporis  affectibus  gubernatur :  sed  plerunque  '^v- 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  Ill 

^t/cot  aliqua  in  parte  sunt  aapKiKoi,  lit  Grsecoiiim 
^hilosopM  scortatores,  puerorum  corruptores,  glorise 
aucnpes,  maledici,  invidi.  Yernm  liic  [1  Cor.  ii. 
14]  nihil  aliud  designatur  quam  homo  hum  ana  tan- 
tum  ration  e  nitens,  qnales  erant  Judaeorum  pleriqne 
et  philosophi  Grsecorum.' 

The  question,  how  to  deal  with  '^Irup^t/co?  in  trans- 
lation, is  certainly  one  not  very  easy  to  answer. 
'  Soulish,'  which  some  have  proposed,  would  have 
the  advantage  of  standing  in  the  same  relation  to 
^  soul '  that  '\jrvxi'fc6<i  does  to  'ylrvxn  and  '  animalis '  to 
'  anima  ; '  but  the  word  is  hardly  English,  and  would 
certainly  convey  no  meaning  at  all  to  English  read- 
ers. "Wiclif  rendered  it  '  beastly,'  which,  it  need 
hardly  be  said,  had  nothing  for  him  of  the  meaning 
of  6r)pccoS7}^,  but  was  simply  =  '  animal '  (he  found 
'  animalis  '  in  his  Yulgate).  The  Eheims  renders  it 
'  sensual,'  which,  at  Jam.  iii.  15  ;  Jude  19,  our 
Translators  have  adopted,  substituting  this  for 
^  fleshly,'  which  was  in  Cranmer's  and  the  Geneva 
Version.  On  the  other  three  occasions  of  the  word's 
occurrence  they  have  rendered  it  'natural.'  These 
are  both  unsatisfactory  renderings,  and  'sensual' 
more  so  now  than  it  was  at  the  time  when  our  Yer- 
sion  was  made,  '  sensual '  and  '  sensuality '  having 
considerably  modified  their  meaning  since  that 
time. 


112  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 


§  xxii. — aapKCKo^,  aapKCVo^;, 

A  DISCUSSION  on  the  relations  between  'yjrvxi'Ko^ 
and  aapKLKo^;  easily  draws  after  it  one  on  the  rela- 
tions between  the  latter  of  these  words  and  another 
form  of  the  same,  adpKLvo^,  w^hich  occm-s  three,  or 
perhaps  four,  times  in  the  N.  T. ;  only  once  indeed 
in  the  received  text  (2  Cor.  iii.  3) ;  but  the  evidence 
is  overwhelming  for  its  further  right  to  a  place  at 
Eom.  vii.  14 ;  Heb.  vii.  16 ;  while  a  preponderance 
of  evidence  is  in  favour  of  allowing  adpKivo^i  to 
stand  also  at  1  Cor.  iii.  1. 

Words  with  the  termination  in  lvo^,  ^erovcnaa- 
TLKa  as  they  are  called,  designating,  as  they  most 
frequently  do,  the  substance  of  which  anything  is 
made  (see  Donaldson,  Cratylus^  p.  458;  Winer, 
Gramm.  §  xvi.  3),  are  common  in  the  K.  T. ;  thus 
6mvo<;,  of  thyine  wood  (Rev.  xviii.  12),  vaXivo<^,  of 
glass,  glassen  (Rev.  iv.  6),  vaKLvdivo^  (Rev.  ix.  T), 
dfcdv6Lvo<;  (Mark  xv.  17).  One  of  these  is  (TdpKcvo<;, 
the  only  form  of  the  word  which  classical  antiquity 
recognized  {(rapKLKo^;,  like  the  Latin  '  carnalis,'  hav- 
ing been  called  out  by  the  ethical  necessities  of  the 
Church),  and  at  2  Cor.  iii.  3  well  rendered  '  fleshy ; ' 
that  is,  having  flesh  for  the  substance  and  material 
of  which  it  is  made.  I  am  not  aware  whether  the 
word  '  fleshen '  ever  existed  in  the  English  language. 


NEW   TESTAMElsT.  113 

If  it  had  done  so,  and  still  survived,  it  would  be 
better  still ;  for  '  fleshy  '  may  be  '  carnosus,'  as  un- 
doubtedly may  aapKcvo^  as  well  (Plato,  Zegg.  x. 
906  c  ;  Aristotle,  Mhic.  Nic.  iii.  9.  3),  while  '  flesh- 
en  '  must  be  what  crdpKLvo<;  means  here,  namely 
'  carneus,'  or  made  of  flesh.  Such  a  word  may  very 
probably  have  once  existed  in  the  language,  a  vast 
number  of  a  like  form  having  once  been  current, 
which  have  now  passed  away ;  as,  for  example, 
'  stonen,'  '  hornen,'  '  clayen  '  (all  in  Wiclif's  Bible), 
'  thread  en '  (Shakespeare), '  tinnen '  (Sylvester), '  mil- 
ken,'  '  broaden,'  '  reeden,'  with  many  more  (see  my 
English  Past  and  Present^  6th  edit.  p.  165  sqq.). 
Their  perishing  is  to  be  regretted,  for  they  were 
often  by  no  means  superfluous.  Thus  we  have  given 
up  ^  stonen '  and  kept  only  '  stony,'  while  the  Ger- 
mans retain  both  '  steinig '  and  *  steinern,'  and  find 
use  for  both  ;  as  the  Latin  does  for  *  lapidosus '  and 
^  lapideus,'  ^  saxosus '  and  '  saxeus.'  "V^^e  might  do 
the  same  for  '  stony '  and  '  stonen ; '  a  '  stony '  field 
is  a  field  in  which  stones  are  many,  a  '  stonen '  ves- 
sel would  be  a  vessel  made  of  stone.     As  again,  a 

*  glassy '  sea  is  a  sea  resembling  glass,  a  '  glassen ' 
sea  is  a  sea  made  of  glass.     And  thus  too  '  fleshly,' 

*  fleshy,'  and  *  fleshen,'  would  have  been  none  too 
many,  any  more  than  are  ^  earthly,'  '  earthy,'  and 
'  earthen,'  for  all  of  which  we  are  able  to  find  their 
own  proper  employment. 


114:  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

'  Fleshly '  lusts  {'  carnal '  is  the  word  oftener  em- 
ployed in  our  Translation,  but  in  fixing  the  relations 
between  aapKiKo^  and  a-dpKLvo<;,  it  will  be  more  con- 
venient to  employ  '  fleshly '  and  '  flesliy ')  are  lusts 
which  move  and  stir  in  the  ethical  domain  of  the 
flesh,  which  have  in  that  rebellions  region  of  man's 
corrupt  and  fallen  nature  their  source  and  spring. 
Such  are  the  aapKiKal  iTnOv/JLiaL  (1  Pet.  ii.  11),  and 
the  man  who  is  aapKiKo^;  is  the  man  allowing  an  un- 
due preponderance  of  the  ordp^ ;  which  is  in  its  place 
so  long  as  it  is  imder  the  dominion  of  the  Trvevfia, 
but  which  becomes  the  source  of  all  sin  and  all  op- 
position to  God  so  soon  as  the  true  positions  of  these 
two  are  reversed,  and  that  rules  which  should  have 
been  ruled.  But  when  St.  Paul  says  of  the  Corin- 
thians (1  Cor.  iii.  1)  that  they  were  adpKcvoi,  he  finds 
fault  indeed  with  them ;  but  the  accusation  is  far 
less  grave  than  if  he  had  written  aapKiKoi  instead. 
He  does  not  intend  hereby  to  charge  them  with 
positive  active  opx^osition  to  the  Spirit  of  God — this 
is  evident  from  the  co?  vrjinov  with  which  he  pro- 
ceeds to  explain  it — but  only  that  they  Avere  intel- 
lectually as  well  as  spiritually  tarrying  at  the  thresh- 
old of  the  faith  ;  making  no  progress,  and  content 
to  remain  where  they  were,  when  they  might  have 
been  carried  far  onward  by  the  mighty  transforming 
powers  of  that  Spirit  which  was  freely  given  to  them 
of  God.     He  does  not  charge  them  in  this  word 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  115 

with  being  antisij^intim'l,  but  only  with,  being  ten- 
spiritual,  with  being  flesh  and  little  more,  when 
they  might  have  been  mnch  more.  He  goes  on  in- 
deed, at  verses  3,  4,  to  charge  them  with  the  graver 
guilt  of  allowing  the  crdp^  to  work  actively,  as  a 
ruling  principle  in  them;  and  he  consequently 
changes  his  word.  They  were  not  o-dpKcvoL  alone, 
for  no  man  and  no  Church  can  long  tarry  at  this 
point,  but  aap/ccKOL  as  well,  and,  as  such,  full  of 
"  envying  and  strife  and  divisions  "  (ver.  3). 

In  what  manner  our  Translators  should  have 
marked  the  distinction  between  adpKcvo^  and  aap- 
KLKo^  here  it  is  not  so  easy  to  suggest.  It  is  most 
likely,  indeed,  that  the  difficulty  did  not  so  much 
as  present  itself  to  them,  who  probably  accepted 
the  received  text,  in  which  there  was  no  variation 
of  words.  At  2  Cor.  iii.  3  all  was  plain  before 
them  ;  the  aapKLvai  ifKaKe^;  are,  as  they  have  given 
it  well,  the  "  fleshy  tables  of  the  heart ; "  where 
Erasmus  observes  to  the  point  that  aapKcvo?,  not 
crapKLKo^,  is  used,  '  ut  materiam  intelligas,  non  qua- 
litatem.'  St.  Paul  is  drawing  a  contrast  between 
the  tables  of  stone  on  which  the  law  of  Moses  was 
written  and.  the  tables  of  flesh  on  which  Christ's 
law  is  written,  and  exalting  the  last  over  the  first ; 
and  so  far  from  '  fleshy '  there  being  a  dishonourable 
epithet,  it  is  a  most  honourable,  serving  as  it  does  to 
Bet  forth  the  superiority  of  the  new  Law  over  the 


116  SYKONTMS   OF  THE 

old — tlie  one  graven  on  dead  tables  of  stone,  the 
other  on  the  hearts  of  living  men  (cf.  Ezek.  xi.  19 ; 
xxxvi.  2(3 ;   Jer.  xxxi.  33). 


§  xxiii. — TTVOT))  TTvev/jLa,  aveiio^, 

Feom  the  association  into  which  Trvevfia  is  here 
brought,  it  will  at  once  be  evident  that  it  is  only 
proposed  to  deal  with  it  in  its  natural  and  earthly, 
not  at  all  in  its  supernatural  and  heavenly,  mean- 
ing. It  may  be  permitted,  however,  to  observe,  by 
the  way,  that  on  the  relations  between  ttvot]  and 
TTvevfJia  in  this  its  higher  sense  there  is  a  discussion 
in  Augustine,  De  Civ.  Dei,  xiii.  22 ;  cf.  Z>e  Anim. 
et  Huj,  Grig.  i.  14.  19.  The  three  words,  as  desig- 
nating not  things  heavenly  but  things  earthly,  differ 
from  one  another  exactly  as,  according  to  Seneca, 
do  in  the  Latin  '  aer,'  '  spiritus,'  '  ventus '  {Nat.  Qu. 
V.  13) :  *  Spiritum  a  vento  motus  ^  separat ;  vehe- 
mentior  enim  spiritus  ventus  est ;  invicem  spiritus 
leviter  fluens  aer.' 

HvoT)  conveys  the  impression  of  a  lighter,  gentler, 
breath  of  air  than  irvevfia,  as  '  aura  '  than  '  ventus  ' 

'  So  quoted  in  Doderlein ;  but  the  edition  of  Seneca  before  me 
reads  '  modus.' 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  117 

(Plinj,  Ejp.  V.  6 :  '  Semper  aer  spiritu  aliquo  mo- 
vetur;  frequentius  tamen  auras  quam  ventos  ha- 
bet ')  ;  this  is  evident  from  the  following  words  of 
Philo  {Leg.  Alleg^  i.  14)  :  irvorjv  Be,  aXV  ov  iTvev[ia 
ecp7jK€v,  o)?  Bca(f)opd<;  01/0-979  *  to  fiev  ryap  irvevixa  ve- 
vorjraL  Kara  ttjv  lcr')(yv  koX  evroviav  koX  Bvva/Jiiv '  rj 
Be  TTVorj  &)9  av  avpd  t/?  iari,  koX  dvaOv/JLLacn^  rjpeixaia 
KoX  TTpaeta.  It  may  be  urged  as  against  this,  that  in 
one  of  the  only  two  places  where  irvoij  occurs  in  the 
]Sr.  T.,  namely  Acts  ii.  2,  the  epithet  ^LUia  is  at- 
tached to  it,  and  it  plainly  is  nsed  of  a  strong  and 
vehement  wind  (cf.  Job  xxxvii.  9).  Bnt,  as  De 
Wette  has  observed,  this  may  be  sufficiently  ac- 
counted for  by  the  fact  that  it  was  necessary  to 
reserve  Trvev/xa  for  the  higher  gift  of  which  this 
'Trvorj  was  the  sign  and  symbol ;  and  it  would  have 
introduced,  if  not  confusion,  yet  certainly  a  repeti- 
tion, for  many  reasons  to  have  been  avoided,  to 
have  employed  that  word  here. 

Tlvevfjia  is  seldom  used  in  the  IST.  T.,  indeed  only 
twice,  namely  at  John  iii.  8  ;  Heb.  i.  7  (in  this  last 
place  not  certainly),  for  wind ;  but  in  the  Septua- 
gint  often,  as  at  Gen.  viii.  1 ;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  9  ; 
Eccles.  xi.  5.  The  rendering  of  ri^'^  in  this  last 
passage  by  ^  spirit,'  and  not,  as  so  often,  by  '  wind ' 
(Job  i.  19 ;  Ps.  cxlviii.  8),  in  our  English  Version, 
is  to  be  regretted,  obscuring  as  it  does  the  remark- 
able connexion  between  these  words  of  the  Preacher 


118  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

and  our  Lord's  words  at  John  iii.  8.  He,  who  ever 
moves  in  the  sphere  and  region  of  the  O.  T.,  in 
those  words  of  his,  "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it 
listeth,"  takes  up  the  words  of  the  Preacher,  "  Thou 
knowest  not  what  is  the  way  of  the  wind ;  "  who 
had  thus  already  indicated  of  what  higher  mysteries 
these  courses  of  the  winds,  not  to  be  traced  by  man, 
were  the  symbol.  HvevfMa  is  found  often  in  the 
Septuagint  in  connexion  with  ttvoyj,  but  this  gener- 
ally in  a  figurative  sense :  Job  xxxiii.  3  ;  Isai.  xlii. 
5  ;  Ivii.  16 ;  2  Sam.  xxii.  16  {ttvot]  7rv€v/iaro<;), 

"Av6/jio9,  etymologically  identical  with  '  ventus ' 
and  '  wind,'  is  the  strong,  oftentimes  the  tempes- 
tuous, wind  (1  Kin.  xix.  11 ;  Job  i.  19  ;  Matt.  vii. 
25  ;  John  vi.  18  ;  Acts  xxvii.  14 ;  Jam.  iii.  4;  Plu- 
tarch, I^rcB.  Conj.  12).  It  is  interesting  and  in- 
structive to  observe  that  our  Lord,  or  rather  the 
inspired  reporter  of  his  conversation  with  Nicode- 
mus,  which  itself  no  doubt  took  place  in  Aramaic, 
uses  not  ave^juo^;,  but  nrvevfia,  as  has  been  noted  al- 
ready, when  he  would  seek  analogies  in  the  natural 
world  for  the  mysterious  movements,  not  to  be 
traced  by  human  eye,  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  this, 
doubtless,  because  there  is  nothing  fierce  or  violent, 
but  all  measured  in  his  operation ;  while  on  the 
other  hand,  when  St.  Paul  would  describe  men  vio- 
lently blown  about  and  tempested  in  a  sea  of  error, 
it  is  KKvhcdVi^oixevoi  Kol  7repi(j)€p6fJi€V0i,  iravTV  dvifj,^ 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  119 

T?}9  hLhaaKcikla<;  (Ephes.  iv.  14 ;  cf.  Jude  12  with  2 
Pet.  ii.  17). 


§  xxiv. — SoKCfMa^o),  Trecpd^co. 

These  words  occur  not  seldom  together,  as  at 
2  Cor.  xiii.  5  ;  Ps.  xxv.  ii ;  xciv.  10  (at  Heb.  iii.  9 
the  better  reading  is  iv  BoKc/iao-Lo) ;  but  though 
both  in  our  English  Yersion  are  rendered  '  prove  ' 
(John  vi.  6 ;  Luke  xiv.  19),  both  'tvj '  (Kev.  ii.  2; 
1  Cor.  iii.  13),  both  '  examine '  (1  Cor.  xi.  28 ;  2  Cor. 
xiii.  5),  they  are  not  therefore  perfectly  synonymous. 
In  SoKCfid^eLv,  which  has  four  other  renderings  in 
our  Yersion, — namely,  'discern'  (Luke  xii.  56); 
*like'  (Rom.  i.  28);  '  approve'  (Rom.  ii.  18) ;  '  al- 
low '  (Rom.  xiv.  22), — lies  ever  the  notion  of  prov- 
ing a  thing  whether  it  be  worthy  to  he  received  or 
not,  being,  as  it  is,  nearly  connected  with  he^eaOai, 
In  classical  Greek  it  is  the  technical  word  for  put- 
ting money  to  the  So/cc/jlt]  or  proof,  by  aid  of  the 
BoKLfiLov  or  test  (Plato,  Tiinceus,  65  c\  Plutarch, 
Def.  Orac.  21)  ;  that  which  endures  this  proof  being 
BoKi/io^y  that  which  fails  dhoKuixo^,  which  words  it 
will  be  well  to  recollect  are  not,  at  least  immedi- 
ately, connected  with  BoKC/id^eiv,  but  with  Be'xeaOai. 
Resting  on  the  fact  that  this  proving  is  through  fire 


120  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

(1  Cor.  iii.  13),  BoKi/^d^eLv  and  irvpovv  are  often 
found  together  (Ps.  xcv.  9  ;  Jer.  ix.  4).  As  em- 
ployed in  the  ^N".  T.,  the  word  will  in  almost  every 
case  imply  that  the  proof  is  victoriously  sunnounted, 
the  proved  is  also  approved  (2  Cor.  viii.  8 ;  1  Thess. 
ii.  4  ;  1  Tim.  iii.  10),  just  as  in  English  we  speak  of 
tried  men  {■=  BeSoKC/jLacrfjbivoi,),  meaning  not  merely 
those  who  have  been  tested,  but  who  have  stood  the 
test.  It  is  then  very  nearly  equivalent  to  a^covv 
(1  Thess.  ii.  4  ;  cf.  Plutarch,  Theseus,  12).  Some- 
times the  word  will  advance  even  a  step  further, 
and  signify  not  merely  to  approve  the  proved,  but 
to  select  or  choose  the  approved  (Xenophon,  Anab, 
iii.  3.  12 ;  cf.  Eom.  i.  18). 

But  on  BoKifjid^eLv  there  not  merely  for  the  most 
part  follows  a  coming  victoriously  out  of  the  trial, 
but  also  it  is  implied  that  the  trial  was  itself  made 
in  the  expectation  and  hope  that  so  it  would  be ;  at 
all  events,  with  no  contrary  hope  or  expectation. 
The  ore  is  not  thrown  into  the  fining  pot — and  this 
is  the  image  which  continually  underlies  the  use  of 
the  word  in  the  Old  Testament  (Zech.  xiii.  9 ;  Prov. 
viii.  10  ;  xvii.  3 ;  xxvii.  21 ;  Ps.  Ixv.  10 ;  Jer.  ix.  7 ; 
Sirac.  ii.  5  ;  "Wisd.  iii.  6  ;  cf.  1  Pet.  i.  Y) — except  in 
the  expectation  and  belief  that,  whatever  of  dross 
may  be  found  mingled  with  it,  yet  it  is  not  all 
dross,  but  that  some  good  metal,  and  better  now 
than  before,  will  come  forth  from  the  fiery  trial 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  121 

(Heb.  xii.  5 — 11 ;  2  Mace.  vi.  12 — 16).  It  is  ever  so 
with  the  proofs  to  which  He  who  sits  as  a  Hefiner 
in  his  Church  submits  his  own;  his  intention  in 
these  being  ever,  not  indeed  to  find  his  saints  pure 
gold  (for  that  He  knows  they  are  not),  but  to  make 
them  such ;  to  purge  out  their  dross,  never  to  show 
that  they  are  all  dross.  As  such.  He  is  BoKL/jLaaTr]<; 
Tcov  KapSicov  (1  Thess.  ii.  4 ;  Jer.  xi.  20  ;  Ps.  xvi.  4)  ; 
as  such,  Job  could  say  of  Him,  using  another  equiv- 
alent word,  BieKpcvi  [le  coa-irep  to  'x^pvalov.  To  Him 
as  such  his  people  pray,  in  words  like  those  of  Abe- 
lard,  expounding  the  sixth  petition  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  '  Da  ut  per  tentationem  probemur,  non  re- 
probemur.'  And  here  is  the  point  of  divergence 
between  the  use  of  BoKc/xd^eLv  and  'n-ecpd^eiv,  as  will 
be  plain  when  the  second  of  these  words  has  been  a 
little  considered. 

This  putting  to  the  proof  may  have  quite  an- 
other intention,  as  it  may  have  quite  another  issue 
and  end,  than  those  which  have  been  just  described ; 
nay,  it  certainly  will  have  such  in  the  case  of  the 
false-hearted,  and  those  who,  seemingly  belonging 
to  God,  had  yet  no  root  of  the  matter  in  themselves. 
Being  proved  or  tempted,  they  will  appear  to  be 
what  they  have  always  been ;  and  this  fact,  though 
it  does  not  overrule  all  the  uses  of  ireLpd^eiv,  does 
yet  predominantly  afi'ect  the  use  of  the  word.  It 
lies  not  of  necessity  in  it  that  it  should  oftenest  p9§- 


122  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

sess  an  evil  signification,  and  imply  a  making  trial 
with  the  intention  and  hope  of  entangling  tlie  per- 
son so  tried  in  sin.  Heipd^uv,  connected  with 
'  perior,'  '  experior,'  Trelpco,  means  properly  no  more 
than  to  make  an  experience  of  {irelpav  XafjijSdveiv, 
Heb.  xi.  29,  36),  to  pierce  or  search  into  (thus  of 
the  wicked  it  is  said,  Tretpd^ovat  Odvarov^  Wisd.  ii. 
25 ;  cf.  xii.  26 ;  Ecclus.  xxxix.  4) ;  or  to  attempt 
(Acts  xvi.  7  ;  xxiv.  6).  But  the  word  came  next  to 
signify  the  trying  intentionally  and  with  the  pur- 
pose of  discovering  what  of  good  or  evil,  of  power 
or  weakness,  was  in  a  person  or  thing  (Matt.  xvi.  1 ; 
xix.  3 ;  xxii.  18 ;  1  Xin.  x.  1) ;  or,  where  this  was 
already  known  to  the  trier,  discovering  the  same  to 
the  tried  themselves;  as  when  St.  Paul  addresses 
the  Corinthians,  eavrou?  ireLpd^ere,  "  try,"  or  as  we 
have  it,  "  examine  yourselves  "  (2  Cor.  xiii.  5).  It 
is  thus  that  sinners  are  said  to  tempt  God  (Matt, 
iv.  7  [iKireipd^eiv]  ;  Acts  v.  9 ;  1  Cor.  x.  9;  Wisd.  i. 
2),  putting  Him  to  the  proof,  refusing  to  believe  Him 
on  his  own  word  or  till  He  has  shown  his  power. 
At  this  stage,  too,  of  the  word's  history  and  suc- 
cessive usages  we  must  arrest  it,  when  we  affirm 
of  God  that  He  tempts  (Heb.  xi.  17;  cf.  Gen.  xxil 
1 ;  Exod.  XV.  25  ;  Deut.  xiii.  3).  In  no  other  sense 
or  intention  can  He  try  or  tempt  men  (Jam.  i.  13) ; 
but  because  He  does  tempt  in  this  sense  {yv/jLvaa-La^ 
Xaplv  fcal  dvappriaew^y  (Ecumenius),  and  because  of 


NEW  TESTAMENT,  123 

the  self-knowledge  wliicli  may  be  won  throngh 
these  temptations, — so  that  men  may,  and  often  do, 
come  out  of  them  holier,  humbler,  stronger  than 
they  were  when  they  entered  in,' — St.  James  is  able 
to  say,  ^'  Count  it  all  joy  when  ye  fall  into  divert 
temptations "  (i.  2 ;  cf.  ver.  12).  The  word  itself, 
however,  does  not  stop  here.  The  melancholy  fact 
that  men  so  often  break  down  under  temptation 
gives  to  iretpd^ecv  a  predominant  sense  of  putting 
to  the  proof  with  the  intention  and  the  hope  that 
they  may  break  down ;  and  thus  the  word  is  con- 
stantly applied  to  the  temptations  of  Satan  (Matt, 
iv.  1 ;  1  Cor.  vii.  5 ;  Hev.  ii.  10),  which  are  always 
made  with  such  intention,  he  himself  bearing  the 
name  of  The  Tempter  (Matt.  iv.  3 ;  1  Thess.  iii.  5), 
and  evermore  approving  himself  as  such  (Gen.  iii. 
1,  4,  5  ;  1  Chron.  xxi.  1). 

We  may  say  then  in  conclusion,  that  while  irei- 
pd^ecv  may  be  used,  but  exceptionally,  of  God,  Eokl- 

^  Augustine  (Sernu  Ixxi.  c.  10)  :  '  In  eo  quod  dictum  est,  Deus 
neminem  tentat,  non  omni  sed  quodam  tentationis  modo  Deus  nemi- 
nem  tentare  intelligendus  est :  ne  falsum  sit  illud  quod  scriptum  est, 
Tentat  vos  Dominus  Deus  vester  [Deut.  xiii.  3] ;  et  ne  Christum 
negemus  Deum,  vel  dicamus  falsum  Evangelium,  ubi  legimus  quia 
interrogabat  diseipulum,  tentans  emn  [Job.  vi.  5].  Est  enim  tenta- 
tio  adducens  peccatum,  qu^  Deus  neminem  tentat ;  et  est  tentatio 
probans  fidem,  qua  et  Deus  tentare  dignatur.'  Cf.  Serm.  ii.  c.  3 : 
'  Deus  tentat  lit  doceat ;  diabolus  tentat,  ut  decipiat.'  Cf.  Serin.  Ivii. 
c.  9. 


124  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

ud^ecv  could  not  be  used  of  Satan,  seeing  tliat  lie 
never  proves  that  lie  may  approve,  or  tests  that  he 
may  accept. 


§  XXV. — 'Soj>ia,  (j)p6vr}cn<;,  ^vSiaL^,  iirLyvcocri';, 

So(j)ia,  (I)p6v7]<7i,<;,  yvcocri,^  all  occur  together,  Dan. 
i.  4,  17.  They  are  all  ascribed  to  God  {(f)p6v7]cn<; 
not  in  the  ]Sr.  T.,  for  Ephes.  i.  8  is  not  in  point) ; 
a-o(^ia  and  yvcoa-t<;,  Eom.  xi.  33  ;  (fypovrjac^  and  G-o(pia, 
Prov.  iii.  19  ;  Jer.  x.  12.  There  have  been  various 
efforts  to  draw  the  exact  lines  of  distinction  between 
them.  These,  however  they  may  vary  in  detail, 
have  this  in  common,  that  aocpLa  is  always  recog- 
nized as  expressing  the  highest  and  noblest,  as  in- 
deed it  must,  being,  as  it  is  commonly  declared,  the 
knowledge  of  things  divine  and  human.  Qelcov  koX 
avOpcoTTLVcov  irpay/jbaTcov  eTriarrifxr],  Clemens  of  Alex- 
andria defines  it  {Poddag.  ii.  2),  but  adds  elsewhere, 
Kol  TOiv  TovTcov  alricov  {Strom,  i.  5),  following  herein 
the  Stoic  definition.^  Augustine  distinguishes  be- 
tween it  and  yvcjcro^  as  follows  {Be  Div.  Qucest.  ii. 
qu.  2),  '  Hsec  ita  discerni  solent,  ut  sapientia  [cro^ta] 
pertineat  ad  intellectum  setemorum,  scientia  [7i^wo-t9] 

*  On  the  relation  of  (piKoaocpia  (eirtT/jSeuo-ts  <ro<plas,  Philo,  Be  Cong, 
Ertid,  Gh'at.  xiv.)  to  crocpia  see  Clemens,  Strom,  i.  5. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  125 

vero  ad  ea  quse  sensibus  corporis  erperimur ; '  and 
for  a  imicli  fuller  discussion  see  Be  Trin.  xii.  22 — 
2i  ;  xiv.  3.     Yery  much  the  same  is  said  in  regard 
of  the  relation  between  ao^ia  and  <^p6v7j(n<;.     Thus 
Philo,  who  defines  <^p6vrj(jL<;  as  the  mean  between 
cunning  and  folly,  fJiiar)  Travovpyia^;  koX  ^icopia^  cppo- 
vqaL^s  {Quod  Beits.  Imm.  35),  gives  elsewhere  the 
distinction  between  it  and  aoj>ia  {BeFrcBm.  et  Pcen, 
14) :  ^o(/)ta  phf  yap  7rpo<i  depairelav  Oeov,  (t>p6vrjG-L<! 
Be  7rpo9   av6p(DiriVov  ^lov   SioUrjcrcv.     This  was  the 
familiar  and  recognized  distinction,  as  witness  the 
words  of  Cicero  {Be  Of.  ii.  43)  :  '  Princeps  om- 
nium virtutum  est  ilia  sapientia  quam  aocpiav  Grseci 
vocant.     Prudentiam  enim,  quam  Gr^ci  (ppour^crcv 
dicunt,  aham  quandam  intelligimus,  quse  est  rerum 
expetendarum,  fugiendarumque  scientia ;  ilia  autem 
sapientia,  quam  principem  dixi,  rerum  est  divinarum 
at  que  human  arum  scientia : '  cf.  Tiisc.  iv.  26.     In 
all  this  he  is  following  in  the  steps  of  Aristotle,  who 
thus  defines  (fypovrjai^  {Ethic.  Nic.  vi.  5.  4) :   eft9 
aK7]Qj)^  fiera  Xoyov  irpaKTLKr)  irepl  ra  dvdpcoircp  ayaOa 
Kol  KaKci.     It  will  be  seen  from  these  references  and 
quotations,  that  the  Christian  Fathers  have  drawn 
their    distinction  between  these  Avords  from  the 
schools  of  heathen  philosophy,  with  only  such  deep- 
ening of  their  meaning  as  must  necessarily  follow 
when  the  ethical  terms  of  a  lower  are  assumed  into 
the  service  of  a  higher. 


126  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

We  may  say  boldly  that  crocj^la  is  never  in  Scrip- 
ture ascribed  to  other  than  God  or  good  men,  except 
in  an  ironical  sense,  with  the  exj^ress  addition,  or 
subaudition,  of  rod  Koafiov  tovtov  (1  Cor.  i.  20),  rov 
aloivo^  TOVTOV  (1  Cor.  ii.  6),  or  some  such  words  (2 
Cor.  i.  12) ;  nor  are  any  of  the  children  of  this 
world  called  aoc^ol  except  with  this  tacit  or  express- 
ed addition  (Luke  x.  21)  ;  they  are  in  fact  the  </)a(7- 
KovTe<;  elvat,  cro(j}ol  of  Rom.  i.  22.  For,  indeed,  if 
cro^la  includes  the  striving  after  the  best  ends  as 
well  the  using  of  the  best  means  (cf.  Aristotle, 
Ethic.  Nic.  vi.  Y.  3),  there  can  be  no  wisdom  dis- 
joined from  goodness,  even  as  Plato  had  said  long 
ago  {Mencx.  19)  :  iraa-a  iiruaTrjiiri  'x^copL^o/xivrj  BtKai- 
oavv7]<;  Kol  t?}?  dX\7)<;  dp6T7J<;,  Travovpyla  ov  <TO(j)La 
(^alveTai '  cf.  Ecclus.  xix.  20,  22,  a  fine  parallel. 
The  true  antithesis  to  cro</)09  is  clvot^to'^  (Rom.  i.  14). 
The  aavveTO'^  need  not  be  more  than  intellectually 
deficient,  but  in  the  clvotjto^  there  is  always  a  moral 
fault  which  lies  at  the  root  of  the  intellectual,  the 
roO?,  the  highest  knowing  power  in  man,  the  organ 
by  which  divine  things  are  known  and  apprehend- 
ed, being  the  ultimate  seat  of  the  error.  Thus  com- 
pare Luke  xxiv.  25  (w  avorjToc  kol  yS/^aSet?  ttj  Kap- 
Zia)\  Gab  V.  1,  3;  1  Tim.  vi.  0;  Tit.  iii.  3;  in 
every  one  of  which  places  the  word  has  a  moral 
tinge :  it  is  the  foolishness  which  is  akin  to  and  is 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  127 

derived  from  wickedness,  even  as  o-ocj^la  is  the  wis- 
dom which  is  akin  to  goodness. 

But  <f>p6v7)(7c<;,  being  a  right  nse  and  application 
of  the  (j>pi]v,  is  a  ixeaov.  It  may  be  akin  to  a-ocpla 
(Prov.  X.  23), — they  are  interchangeably  nsed  by 
Plato,  Co7iv.  202  a, — but  it  may  also  be  akin  to 
Travovpyla  (Job  v.  13 ;  Wisd.  xvii.  Y).  It  skilfully 
adapts  its  means  to  the  attainment  of  the  desired 
ends,  but  whether  the  ends  themselves  are  good,  of 
this  the  word  affirms  nothing.  On  the  different 
kinds  of  (ppovrjcn^y  and  the  very  different  senses  in 
which  it  is  employed,^  see  Basil  the  Great,  Horn,  in 
Prine.  Prov.  §  6 ;  cf.  Aristotle,  Phet.  i.  9.  It  is 
true  that  on  the  only  two  occasions  when  ^povqat^ 
occurs  in  the  JN".  T.  (eV  cppovTja-ec  ScKalcav,  Luke  i.  17 ; 
<TO(^ia  Kol  ^povrjcreiy  Ephes.  i.  8),  it  is  used  of  a  laud- 
able j)rudence5  but  for  all  this  (j)p6v7]cn<;  is  not  wis- 
dom, nor  (j)p6vcfjLo<:  wise ;  so  that  Augustine  (De 
Ge?i.  ad  Lit.  xi.  2)  has  right  when  he  objects  to  the 
'sapientissimus'  with  which  some  Latin  Yersion 
had  rendered  the  ^povtjiia)TaTo<;  applied  to  the  ser- 
pent at  Gen.  iii.  1,  saying,  '  Abusione  nominis  sa- 
pientia  dicitur  in  malo  ; '  cf.  Con.  Gaud.  i.  5.  And 
the  same  objection,  as  has  been  often  urged,  holds 
good  against  the  "  wise  ^  as  serpents  "  (Matt.  x.  16), 

*  The  Old  Italic  runs  perhaps  Into  the  opposite  extreme,  rendering 
^pdvifioi  here  by  '  astuti ; '  which,  however,  it  must  be  remembered, 


128  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

"  vnser  than  the  children  of  light "  (Luke  xvi.  8),  of 
our  Yersion. 

On  the  distinction  between  at^ia  and  <yv(b<7c<; 
Bengel  has  the  following  note  {Gnomo?i,  in  1  Cor. 
12) :  '  Illud  certum,  quod,  ubi  Deo  ascribnntur,  in 
solis  objectis  differunt;  vid.  Eom.  xi.  33.  Ubi 
fidelibus  tribuuntur,  sajDientia  [o-oc^/a]  magis  in  Ion- 
gum,  latum,  profundum  et  altum  penetrat,  quam 
cognitio  [7i/co<7i9].  Cognitio  est  quasi  visus ;  sapi- 
entia  visus  cum  sap  ore ;  cognitio,  rerum  agenda- 
rum,  sapientia,  rerum  seternarum ;  quare  etiam  sa- 
pientia  non  dicitur  abroganda,  1  Cor.  xiii.  8.' 

On  the  difference  between  jvcoac^  and  iTTLyvco- 
o-L^,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  say  that  the  iirl  in  the 
latter  must  be  regarded  as  intensive,  giving  to  the 
compound  word  a  greater  strength  than  the  simple 
possessed ;  thus  eTrtfieXeo/jLai,  iircvoico,  iiraiaOavojxaL : 
and,  by  the  same  rule,  if  7z^cocrt9  is  '  cognitio,'  '  kennt- 
niss,'  iirl'yvwG-L^  is  '  major  exactiorque  cognitio ' 
(Grotius),  '  erkenntniss,'  a  deeper  and  more  inti- 
mate knowledge  and  acquaintance ;  not  T^^cogni- 
tion,  in  the  Platonic  sense  of  knowledge ;  a  remi- 
niscence, as  distinct  from  cognition,  if  we  might  use 
that  word ;  which  Jerome,  on  Ephes.  iv.  13,  and 
some  moderns,  have  affirmed.  St.  Paul,  it  will  be 
remembered,  exchanges  the  'yiyvojaKWy  which  ex- 
had  not  in  the  later  Latin  at  all  so  evil  a  subaudition  as  it  had  in  the 
classical;  so  Augustine  {Ep.  167.  6)  assures  us. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  129 

presses  his  present  and  fragmentary  knowledge,  for 
€  TT  i  <yvo}aofjiai,  wlien  lie  would  express  his  future  in- 
tuitive and  complete  knowledge  (1  Cor.  xiii.  12).  It 
is  difficult  to  see  how  this  should  have  been  pre- 
served in  the  English  Version ;  our  Translators  have 
made  no  attempt  to  preserve  it ;  Bengel  does  so  by 
aid  of  '  nosco '  and  '  pernoscam,'  and  Culverwell 
{Sjpiritual  Ojptics^  p.  180)  has  the  following  note : 
*  *E7riyvco(TL<;  and  yvcoa-c^  differ.  'ETriyvcoaL^  is  ?; 
aera  t7]v  irp^ri^v  yvwaiv  rod  Trpdyfjuaro^  iravrekT]^ 
Kara  BvvafjLLv  KaTavorjai^.  It  is  bringing  me  better 
acquainted  with  a  thing  I  knew  before;  a  more 
exact  viewing  of  an.object  that  I  saw  before  afar  off. 
That  little  jDortion  of  knowledge  which  we  had  here 
shall  be  much  improved,  our  eye  shall  be  raised  to 
see  the  same  things  more  strongly  and  clearly.'  All 
St.  Paul's  uses  of  iTTLyvcoaifi  justify  and  bear  out 
this  distinction  (Rom.  i.  28;  iii.  20  ;  x.  2;  Eph.  iv. 
13  ;  Phil.  i.  9  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  4 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  25). 


§  xxvi. — \a\io),  Xiyco  {XaXcd,  \6yo<;). 

In  dealing  with  synonyms  of  the  1^.  T.  we  ought 
plainly  not  to  concern  ourselves  with  such  earlier, 
or  even  cotemporary,  uses  of  the  words  which  we 
are  discriminating,  as  lie  altogether  outside  of  its 


130  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

sphere,  when  these  uses  do  not  illustrate,  and  have 
not  affected,  the  scriptural  employment  of  the 
words.  It  will  follow  from  this  that  all  those  con- 
temptuous uses  of  XaXelv  as  to  talk  at  random,  as 
one  with  no  door  to  his  lips  might  do ;  of  \a\cd  as 
chatter  (aKpaala  Xoyov  dXoyo^,  Plato,  Defin.  416) — 
for  I  cannot  believe  that  we  are  to  find  this  at  John 
iv.  42 — may  be  dismissed  and  set  aside.  The  anti- 
thesis of  the  line  of  Eupolis,  ' 

KaXilv  apicTTOs,  aSvvaruiTaTos  \4yeiu^ 

does  not  help  us,  nor  touch  the  distinction  between 
the  words  which  we  seek  to  draw  out.  What  that 
distinction  is,  may  in  this  way  be  made  clear.  Tliere 
are  two  leading  aspects  under  which  speech  may  be 
contemplated.  It  may,  first,  be  contemplated  as 
the  articulate  utterance  of  human  language,  in  con- 
trast with  the  absence  of  this,  from  whatever  cause 
springing ;  whether  from  choice,  as  in  tliose  who 
hold  their  peace,  when  they  might  speak  ;  or  from 
the  present  undeveloped  condition  of  the  organs  and 
faculties,  as  in  the  case  of  infants  {vrjirioC) ;  or  from 
natural  defects,  as  in  the  case  of  those  born  dumb  ; 
or  from  the  fact  of  speech  lying  beyond  the  sphere 
of  the  powers  with  which  as  creatures  they  have 
been  endowed,  as  in  the  lower  animals.  This  is  one 
aspect  of  speech,  namely  articulated  words,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  silence,  or  from  animal  cries.    But, 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  131 

secondly,  speech  may  be  regarded  as  the  orderly 
linking  and  knitting  together  in  connected  discourse 
of  the  inward  thoughts  and  feelings  of  the  mind, 
'  verba  legere  et  lecta  ac  selecta  apte  conglutinare ' 
(Yalcknaer;  cf.  Donaldson,  Cratylus,  453).  The 
first  is  XaXelv  =  ^^^ ,  the  German  '  lallen,'  '  loqni,' 
^  sprechen,'  to  speak ;  the  second  Xiyecv  =  n^x ,  '  di- 
cere,' '  reden,'  to  discourse. 

Thus  the  dumb  man,  restored  to  human  speech, 
iXaXvo-e  (Matt.  ix.  33 ;  Luke  xi.  14 ;  cf.  xii.  22), 
the  Evangelists  fitly  employing  this  word,  for  they 
are  not  concerned  with  relating  what  the  man  said, 
but  only  with  the  fact  that  he  who  before  was  dumb, 
was  now  able  to  employ  his  organs  of  speech.  So 
too,  it  is  always  XaXelv  jXcoaa-at^  (Mark  xvi.  IT ; 
Acts  ii.  4 ;  1  Cor.  xii.  30),  for  it  is  not  what  those 
in  an  ecstatic  condition  utter,  but  the  fact  of  this 
new  utterance  itself,  and  quite  irrespective  of  the 
burden  of  it,  to  which  the  sacred  narrators  would 
call  our  attention ;  even  as  \a\ecv  may  be  ascribed 
to  God  Himself,  (it  is  so  more  than  once  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  at  i.  1,  2,)  where  the 
point  is  rather  His  speaking  to  men  t]ian  what  it 
may  have  been  that  He  spake. 

But  if  in  XaXelv  the  fact  of  uttering  human  words 
is  the  prominent  notion,  in  Xeyetv  it  is  the  words 
uttered,  and  that  these  are  correlative  to  reasonable 
thoughts  within  the  breast  of  the  utterer.    Thus 


132  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

while  the  parrot  or  talking  automaton  (Rev.  xiii. 
15)  may  be  said,  though  even  they  not  without  a 
certain  impropriety,  XaXeluy  seeing  they  produce 
Bounds  imitative  of  human. speech  ;  yet  seeing  that 
there  is  nothing  behind  these  sounds,  they  could 
never  be  said  Xiyetv ;  for  in  the  Xijeiv  lies  ever  the 
evvoia,  or  thought  of  the  mind,  as  the  correlative 
and  complement  to  the  words  on  the  lips.  Of  <f)pd' 
^ecv  in  like  manner  (it  only  occurs  twice  in  the  !N. 
T.,  Matt.  xiii.  36 ;  xv.  15),  Plutarch  affirms  that  it 
could  not,  but  XaXelv  could,  be  predicated  of  mon- 
keys and  dogs :  XaXova-c  yap  ovrot,  ov  ^pd^ovai,  Be 
(Be  Plac.  Phil.  v.  20). 

In  the  innumerable  passages  v/here  the  words 
occur  together,  I  refer  especially  to  such  phrases  as 
iXaXrjae  Xeycov  and  the  like  (Matt.  ix.  33 ;  Luke 
xi.  14 ;  cf.  XaXrjOeU  X0709,  Heb.  ii.  2),  each  is  true 
to  its  own  meaning,  as  just  asserted.  ^EXdXrja-e  ex- 
presses the  fact  of  opening  the  mouth  to  speak,  as 
opposed  to  the  remaining  silent  (Acts  xviii.  9) ; 
Xeycov  proceeds  to  declare  what  the  speaker  actually 
said.  !N"or  is  there,  I  believe,  any  passage  in  the 
N.  T.  where  the  distinction  between  them  has  not 
been  observed.  Thus  at  Rom.  xv.  18 ;  1  Cor.  xi.  IT  ; 
1  Thess.  i.  8,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  giving  to  XaXetv 
its  proper  meaning ;  indeed  all  these  passages  gain 
rather  than  lose  when  this  is  done.  At  Rom.  iii.  19 
there  is  an  instructive  exchange  of  the  words. 


NEW   TESTAMENT. 


133 


AaXid  and  X6709  in  the  :N'.  T.  are  true  to  the 
distinction  here   traced.     How   completely  XaXid, 
no  less  than  XaXelv,  has  put  off  every  slighting  sense, 
is  abundantly  clear  from  the  fact  that  on  one  occa- 
sion it,  as  well  as  X0709,  is  claimed  by  the  Lord 
Himself  (John  viii.  43  ;  cf.  Ps.  xviii.  4).     This  pas- 
sage in  St.  John  deserves  especial  attention,  as  in  it 
these  two  words  occur  in  a  certain  opposition  to 
one  another,  and  in  the  seizing  of  the  distinction 
intended  between  them  must  lie  the  right  under- 
standing of  what  the  Lord  here  says.     What  He  in- 
tended by  varying  XaXcd  and  X6709  has  been  very 
differently  understood.    Some,  as  Augustine,  though 
commenting  on  the  passage,  have  omitted  to  notice 
the  variation.     Others,   like  Olsliausen,  have  no- 
ticed, only  to  deny  that  it  had  any  significance. 
Others  again,  admitting  the  significance,  have  fiiil- 
ed  to  draw  it  rightly  out.     It  is  clear  that,  as  a  fail- 
ing to  understand  his  speech  (XaXta)  is  traced  up  to 
a  refusing  to  hear  his  word  (X6709),  this  last,  as  the 
root  and  ground  of  the  mischief,  must  be  the  deep- 
er, the  anterior  thing.     To  hear  his  word,  must  be 
to  give  room  to  his  truth  in  the  heart.     They  who 
will  not  do  this  must  fail  to  understand  his  \aXcd, 
the  outward  utterance  of  his  teaching.     Li  other 
words,  they  that  are  of  God  hear  God's  words,  his 
pij/xaTa,  =  XdKid  here,'  (John  viii.  47 ;  xviii.  37), 
'  Philo  makes  the  distinction  of  the  \6yos  and  the  prjfxa  to  be  that 


134  SYNOirois  OF  the 

which  they  that  are  not  of  God  do  not  and  cannot 
hear.  Melancthon  :  '  Qui  veri  sunt  Dei  filii  et  do- 
mestici  non  possunt  patemse  domiis  ignorare  lin- 
guam.' 


§  xxvii. — aiTo\vTp(oaL^y  KaTaWayij,  IXacrfJiSi;, 

These  are  three  grand  circles  of  images,  by  aid 
of  which  it  is  sought  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  IS".  T. 
to  set  forth  to  us  the  inestimable  benefits  of  Christ's 
death  and  passion.  Transcending,  as  these  benefits 
do,  all  human  thought,  and  failing  to  find  anywhere 
a  perfectly  adequate  expression  in  human  language, 
they  must  still  be  set  forth  by  the  help  of  language, 
and  through  the  means  of  human  relations.  Here, 
as  in  other  similar  cases,  what  the  Scripture  does  is 
to  approach  the  central  truth  from  difi'erent  quar- 
ters ;  to  seek  to  set  it  forth  not  on  one  side  but  on 
many,  that  so  these  may  severally  supply  the  defi- 
ciency of  one  another,  and  that  moment  of  the  truth 
which  one  does  not  express,  another  may.  The 
words  placed  at  the  head  of  this  article,  aTrdXvrpco- 
0-69  or  redemption,  KaraXXayi]  or  reconciliation, 
IXacTfMo^  or  propitiation,  are  the  capital  words  sum- 

of  the  whole  and  the  part,  Leg.  Alleg.  iii.   61  :  rb  Se  ^ri^a  fxipos 
K6yov. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  135 

ming  up  three  sucli  families  of  images ;  to  one  or 
other  of  which  ahnost  every  word  directly  bearing 
on  this  work  of  our  salvation  through  Christ  mav 
be  more  or  less  remotely  referred. 

To  speak  first  of  airoXvTpwai^,  which  form,  and 
not  XvTpcoai,^,  St.  Paul  invariably  employs,  Xvrpco- 
ai<;  occurring  only  at  Luke  i.  6S ;  ii.  38  ;  Heb.  ix. 
12, — Chrysostom  upon  Eom.  iii.  24,  drawing  atten- 
tion to  this,  observes  that  by  this  cltto  the  Apostle 
would  express  the  completeness  of  our  redemption 
in  Christ  Jesus,  which  no  later  bondage  should  fol- 
low :  Kol  ovx  a7rXw9  etTre,  Xvrpcoa-eco^,  dXV  aTToXvTpco- 
o-eci)9,  0)9  /JLr]KiTL  rj/id^;  iiravekdelv  irdXiv  iirl  rrjv  avrrjv 
BovXeLav.  In  this  no  doubt  he  has  right,  and  there 
is  the  same  force  in  the  dirb  of  aTroKaraXXdaaecv 
(Ephes.  ii.  16;  Col.  i.  20,  22),  which  is  'prorsus 
reconciliare ; '  see  Fritzsche  on  Eom.  v.  10.  Both 
dTToXvTpcoo-L^  (which  nowhere  occurs  in  the  Septua- 
gint,  but  diroXyrpoco  twice,  Exod.  xxi.  8 ;  Zeph.  iii. 
1),  and  XvTpQ)cn<;  are  late  words  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage. Rost  and  Palm  (Zex.)  give  no  earlier  au- 
thority for  them  than  Plutarch  {Pomp.  24),  while 
XvTp(OTTi]<;  seems  to  be  peculiar  to  the  Greek  Scrip- 
tures (Ps.  xviii.  15;  Acts  vii.  35),  and  such  writ- 
ings as  are  dependent  upon  them. 

When  Theophylact  defines  dTroXvrpcoa-L^  as  77 
aTTo  T979  al')QiaXa)(TLa<^  iiravdKXrja-c^y  he  omits  one 
most  important  moment  of  the  word,  and  one  con- 


136  SYNONTIVIS   OF   THE 

Btitnting  the  central  notion  of  it,  as  indeed  of  our 
word  *  redemption  '  no  less  ;  for  airoXvTpwaL^  is  not 
recall  from  captivity  merelj,  as  lie  would  im^^ly, 
but  recall  from  captivity  through  a  jprice  paid  j 
cf.  Origen  on  E-om.  iii.  24.  The  idea  of  deliverance 
through  a  price  paid,  though  in  actual  use  it  may 
sometimes  fall  away  from  words  of  this  family  (thus 
see  Ps.  cxxxiv.  24),  is  yet  central  to  them.  Let  us 
keep  this  in  mind,  and  we  shall  find  connect  them- 
selves with  airokvTpcoo-L^  a  v/hole  group  of  most  sig- 
nificant words ;  not  only  XvTpov  (Matt.  xx.  28  ; 
Mark  x.  45);  dvTcXvrpov  (I'^Tim.  ii.  6);  Xvrpovv 
(Tit.  ii.  14;  1  Pet.  i.  18) ;  XvTpcoa-L<;  (Heb.  ix.  12) ; 
but  dyopd^ecv  (1  Cor.  vi.  20)  and  i^ayopd^ecv  (1  Pet. 
i.  19 ;  Luke  i.  74) :  here  indeed  is  a  point  of  contact 
with  the  ikacTfio^,  for  the  Xvrpov  j)aid  in  this  aTroiXv- 
rpcoaL^,  is  identical  with  the  7rpocr(j)opd  or  Ovaia  by 
which  that  'Ckacriio^  is  eifected.  Not  to  say  that 
there  also  link  themselves  with  d7ro\vTp(0(n<^  all 
those  passages  which  speak  of  sin  as  slavery,  and 
of  sinners  as  slaves  (John  vi.  17,  20 ;  viii.  34 ;  2 
Pet.  ii.  19) ;  of  deliverance  from  sin  as  freedom, 
cessation  of  bondage  (John  viii.  33,  36 ;  Kom.  viii. 
21 ;  Gal.  v.  1). 

KaraXkayrj,  occurring  four  times  in  the  N.  T. 
only  occurs  twice  in  the  Septuagint.  On  one  of 
these  occasions,  namely  at  Isai.  ix.  5,  it  does  not 
come  into  consideration,  meaning  simply  exchange  ; 


2^EW   TESTAMENT.  137 

but  at  2  Mace.  v.  20  it  is  employed  in  the  IST.  T. 
sense,  being  opposed  to  the  0/57^  rod  ©€ov,  and 
expressing  the  reconciliation,  the  ev/xiveca  of  God 
to  his  people.  While  BcaWayr]  (Ecclus.  xxii.  23  ; 
xxvii.  21),  and  hiaWdaaeiv  (in  the  K.  T.  only  at 
Matt.  V.  21 ;  cf.  Jndg.  xix.  3)  ape  the  more  frequent 
words  in  the  earlier  and  more  classical  periods  of 
the  language,'  still  the  grammarians  are  wrong  who 
denounce  /caraWayj]  and  KaTaXKao-creiv  as  words 
avoided  by  those  who  wrote  the  language  in  its 
highest  purity.  ISTone  need  be  ashamed  of  words 
which  found  favour  with  ^schylus  {Sept.  con,  Theb. 
767) ;  and  Plato  {Phoid.  69  a),  Fritzsche  (on  Kom. 
V.  10)  has  a  valuable  note  disposing  of  Tittman's 
fanciful  distinction  between  KaraWdo-a-etv  and  BloX- 
XdacreLV. 

The  Christian  KaraXkcvyri  has  two  sides.  It  is 
first  a  reconciliation,  *  qua  Deus  nos  sibi  recon- 
ciliavit,'  laid  aside  his  holy  anger  against  our  sins, 
and  received  us  into  favour,  a  reconciliation  effected 
once  for  all  for  us  by  Christ  upon  his  cross;  so 
2  Cor.  V.  18,  19  ;  Kom.  v.  10 ;  in  which  last  passage 
KaTaXkda-G-ecrOai  is  a  pure  passive,  '  ab  eo  in  gra- 
tiam  recipi  apud  quem  in  odio  fueris.'  But  KaraX- 
"kayrj  is  secondly  and  subordinately  the  reconcilia- 

*  Christ  according  to  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Coh.  ad  Gen.  10), 


138  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

tion,  ^  qua  nos  Deo  reconciliamur,'  the  daily  deposi- 
tion, -ander  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  the 
enmity  of  the  old  man  toward  God.  In  this  passive 
middle  sense  KaraXKaaaea-dat,  is  used,  2  Cor.  v.  20  ; 
and  of.  1  Cor.  vii.  11.  All  attempts  to  make  this, 
the  secondary  meaning  of  the  word,  to  be  the  pri- 
mary, rest  not  on  an  unprejudiced  exegesis,  but  on 
a  foregone  determination  to  get  rid  of  the  reality  of 
God's  anger  against  sin.  With  KaraWayi]  connects 
itself  all  that  language  of  Scripture  wdiich  describes 
sin  as  a  state  of  enmity  ie'xBpa)  with  God  (Rom. 
viii.  7 ;  Eph.  ii.  15  ;  Jam.  iv.  4) ;  and  sinners  as 
enemies  to  Him  and  alienated  from  Him  (Eom.  v. 
10 ;  Col.  i.  21) ;  Christ  on  the  cross  as  the  Peace, 
and  maker  of  peace  between  God  and  man  (Ephes. 
ii.  14 ;  Col.  i.  20) ;  all  such  language  as  this,  "  Be 
ye  reconciled  with  God  "  (2  Cor.  v.  20). 

Before  leaving  KaraWayi]  it  may  be  well  to  ob- 
serve, that  the  exact  relations  between  it  and  IXaa- 
/jl6<;,  which  w^ill  have  to  be  considered  next,  are 
somewhat  confused  for  the  English  reader,  from  the 
fact  that  the  word  '  atonement,'  by  which  our 
Translators  have  rendered  KaTaXkayrj  on  one  of  the 
four  occasions  upon  w^hich  it  occurs  in  the  N.  T., 
namely  Rom.  v.  11,  has  gradually  shifted  its  mean- 
ing. It  has  done  this  so  effectually,  tliat  if  the  trans- 
lation were  now  for  the  first  time  to  be  made,  and 
words  to  be  employed  in  their  present  sense  and 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  139 

not  in  their  past,  it  is  plain  that  it  would  be  a  mucli 
fitter  rendering  of  l\ao-fiG<;,  the  notion  of  j^ropitia- 
tion,  which  we  shall  find  the  central  one  of  this 
word,  always  lying  in  onr  present  use  of  '  atone- 
ment.' It  was  not  so  once ;  when  our  Translation 
was  made,  it  signified,  as  innnmerable  examples 
prove,  reconciliation,  or  the  making  np  of  a  fore- 
going enmity ;  all  its  nses  in  our  early  literature 
justifying  the  etymology  now  sometimes  called  into 
question,  that  '  atonement '  is  '  at-one-ment,'  and 
therefore  =  reconciliation  :  and  consequently  then, 
although  not  now,  the  proper  rendering  of  KaraX- 
\ayi]  (see  my  Select  Glossary,  s.vv.  '  atone,'  '  atone- 
ment '). 

'I\aa/jb6<:  occurs  only  twice  in  the  !N".  T.,  both 
times  in  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John  (ii.  2 ;  iv.  10). 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  excellent  word  '  pro- 
pitiation,' by  which  om-  Translators  have  rendered 
it,  did  not  exist  in  the  language  when  the  earlier 
Eeformed  Yersions  were  made.  Tyndale,  the  Ge- 
neva, and  Cranmer  have  "  to  make  agreement,''^ 
instead  of  "  to  be  the  j^o])itiatiorb^^  at  the  first  of 
these  places ;  "  He  that  obtaineth  grace "  at  the 
second.  In  the  same  way  i\aaT7]pLov,  which  we, 
though  I  think  wrongly,  have  also  rendered  '  pro 
pitiation '  (Rom.  iii.  25),  is  rendered  in  translations 
which  share  in  what  I  conceive  our  error  ^'  the  ob- 
tainer  of  mercy  "  (Cranmer),  '  a  pacification  '  (Ge- 


140  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

neva) ;  and  first  '  propitiation  '  in  the  Bheims — tlio 
Latin  tendencies  of  tliis  translation  giving  it  bold- 
ness to  transfer  this  word  from  the  Ynlgate.  ^Tkaor- 
fi6^  is  of  rare  use  also  in  the  Septuagint,  but  in  such 
passages  as  l^um.  v.  8  ;  Ezek.  xliv.  27 ;  2  Mace.  iii. 
33,  it  is  being  prepared  for  the  higher  employment 
which  it  shall  obtain  in  the  N.  T.  Connected  with 
ikcCD^,  '  propitius,'  l\dcrK6(70ai,  'placare,' '  iram  aver- 
tere,'  '  ex  irato  mitem  reddere/  it  is  by  Hesychius 
explained,  not  incorrectly  indeed  (for  see  Dan.  ix. 
9  ;  Ps.  cxxix.  4),  but  inadequately,  by  the  following 
synonyms,  evfieveta,  crvy^caprio-i^y  BtaWayrj,  KaraX- 
Xayrj,  irpaoTT}^ — inadequately,  because  in  none  of 
these  does  there  lie  what  is  constant  in  IXao-fiof;, 
namely  that  the  ev/Meveta  or  goodwill  has  been  gain- 
ed by  means  of  some  offering  or  other,  '  placamen.' 
The  word  is  more  comprehensive  than  /Xacrr?;?, 
which  Grotius  proposes  as  equivalent  to  it.  Christ 
does  not  propitiate  alone,  as  that  word  would  say, 
but  at  once  propitiates,  and  is  Himself  the  propitia- 
tion ;  being,  to  speak  in  the  language  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  in  the  offering  of  Himself  both  at 
once,  ap')(i€p€v^  and  Ovo-ia  or  nrpocr^opdy  for  the  two 
functions  of  priest  and  sacrifice,  which  were  divided, 
and  of  necessity  divided,  in  the  typical  sacrifices  of 
the  law,  met  and  were  united  in  Him,  the  sin-offer- 
ing by  and  through  whom  the  just  anger  of  God 
against  our  sins  was  appeased,  and  God  was  render- 


NEAV   TESTAMENT.  141 

ed  propitious  to  us  once  more.     All  this  the  word 
l\aa/jL6<;,  applied  to  Him,  declares. 

It  will  be  seen  that  with  IXaaixo^  connect  them- 
selves a  larger  group  of  words  and  images  than 
with  either  of  the  words  preceding— all,  namely, 
which  set  forth  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  as  a 
propitiation  of  God,  even  as  all  which  speak  of  Him 
as  a  sacrifice,  an  ofi*ering  (Ephes.  v.  2  ;  Ileb.  x.  14 ; 
1  Cor.  V.  7),  as  the  Lamb  of  God  (John  i.  29,  36 ; 
1  Pet.  i.  19),  as  the  Lamb  slain  (Eev.  v.  6,  8),  and 
a  little  more  remotely,  but  still  in  a  lineal  conse- 
quence from  these  last,  all  which  describe  Him  as 
washing  us  in  his  blood  (Eev.  i.  5).  As  compared 
wdth  /caraWayi]  (which  is  equivalent  to  the  German 
Yersohnung),  I\acr/JL6<;  (which  is  equivalent  to  Yer- 
slihnung)  is  the  deeper  word,  goes  more  to  the  cen- 
tral heart  of  things.  If  we  had  only  KaraWayTj 
and  the  group  of  words  and  images  which  cluster 
round  it,  to  set  forth  the  benefits  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  these  would  indeed  describe  that  we  were 
enemies,  and  by  that  death  were  made  friends  ;  but 
how  made  friends  KaraWayrj  would  not  describe  at 
all.  It  would  not  of  itself  necessarily  imply  satis- 
faction, propitiation,  the  daysman,  the  Mediator, 
the  High  Priest ;  all  which  in  lXao-fi6<i  are  involved. 
I  conclude  this  discussion  with  Bengel's  excellent 
note  on  Eom.  iii.  24 :  '  iXao-fxb?  (expiatio  sive  pro- 
pitiatio)  et  diroXiiTpayo-L^i  (redemtio)  est  in  fundo  rei 


142  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

iinicum  beneficium,  scilicet,  restitutio  peccatoris 
perditi.  ^ATroXvTpwcrt^  est  respectu  hostium,  et  Ka- 
TaXKayrj  est  respectu  Dei.  Atque  hie  voces  l\acr- 
{jlo^  et  KaraWayi]  iterum  differunt.  'IXaajio^  (p^o- 
pitiatio)  tollit  ofiensam  contra  Deum ;  KaraWayrj 
(reconciliatio)  est  StTrXeupo?  et  tollit  (a)  indignatio- 
nem  Dei  adversum  nos,  2  Cor.  v.  19  (J)  nostramque 
abalienationem  a  Deo,  2  Cor.  v.  10.' 


§  xxviii. — -^aX/jLo^;,  vjjlvo^,  (phrj. 

All  these  words  occur  together  at  Ephes.  v.  19, 
and  again  at  Col.  iii.  16  ;  both  times  in  the  same 
order,  and  in  passages  which  very  nearly  repeat 
one  another;  cf.  Ps.  Ixvi.  1.  When  some  refuse 
even  to  attempt  to  distinguish  them  from  each 
other,  urging  that  St.  Paul  had  certainly  no  inten- 
tion of  giving  a  classification  of  Christian  poetry, 
this  may  be,  and  no  doubt  is,  quite  true ;  but  nei- 
ther, on  the  other  hand,  would  he  have  used,  where 
there  is  evidently  no  temptation  to  rhetorical  ampli- 
fication, three  words  if  one  would  have  done  equal- 
ly well.  It  may  reasonably  be  doubted  whether 
we  can  draw  very  accurately  the  lines  of  demarca- 
tion between  the  "  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual 
Bongs  "  of  which  the  Apostle  makes  mention,  or 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  143 

wliether  lie  drew  them  for  himself  with  a  perfect 
accuracy;  the  words,  even  at  the  time  whea  he 
wrote,  may  have  been  often  promiscuously,  con- 
fusedly used.  Still  each  must  have  had  a  meaning 
which  belonged  to  it  more,  and  by  a  better  right, 
than  it  belonged  to  either  of  the  others ;  and  this  it 
may  be  possible  to  draw  out,  even  while  it  is  quite 
impossible  with  perfect  strictness  to  distribute  un- 
der these  three  heads  Christian  poetry  as  it  existed 
in  the  Apostolic  age. 

The  Psalms  of  the  O.  T.  remarkably  enough 
have  no  single,  well  recognized,  universally  accepted 
name  by  which  they  are  designated  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures.  They  first  obtained  such  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint.  WaXfjLo^,  properly  a  touching,  then  a 
touching  of  the  harp  or  other  stringed  instruments 
with  the  finger  or  with  the  plectrum ;  was  next  the 
instrument  itself,  and  last  of  all  the  song  sung  with 
this  musical  accompaniment.  It  is  in  this  latest 
stage  of  its  meaning  that  we  find  the  word  adopted 
in  the  Septuagint ;  and  to  this  agree  the  ecclesi- 
astical definitions  of  it ;  thus  in  the  Lexicon  ascribed 
to  Cyril  of  Alexandria :  X0709  fiovo-LK6<;,  orav  evpvO- 
fjL(Ji)<;  Kara  tov<;  apiiovLKOv^  \6yov<;  to  opyavov  KpovT]- 
rat ;  cf.  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Pcedag.  ii.  4) :  o 
•\/raX/x69,  ifxiiekri^;  icTTLV  evXoyla  Koi  aco^pav.  It  is 
certainly  far  the  most  probable  that  the  '\jraXiMol  of 
Ephes.  V.  19 ;   Col.  iii.  16,  are  the  inspired  Psalms 


144-  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

of  tlie  Hebrew  Canon.  The  word  must  refer  to 
tliese  on  every  otlier  occasion  when  it  is  met  in  the 
IN".  T.,  with  only  one  exception,  namely  1  Cor.  xiy. 
26 ;  and  even  there  it  in  all  likelihood  means  no- 
thing else ;  and  I  must  needs  believe  that  the  Psalms 
which  the  Apostle  would  have  the  faithful  to  sing 
to  one  another,  are  the  Psalms  of  David,  and  of 
the  other  sweet  singers  of  Israel ;  above  all,  seeing 
that  the  word  seems  bounded  and  limited  to  its  nar- 
rowest use  by  the  nearly  synonymous  words  with 
which  it  is  grouped. 

But  while  the  psalm  by  the  right  of  primogeni- 
ture, as  at  once  the  oldest  and  most  venerable,  thus 
occupies  the  foremost  place,  the  Church  of  Christ 
does  not  restrict  herself  to  such,  but  claims  the 
freedom  of  bringing  new  things  as  well  as  old  out 
of  her  treasure-house.  She  will  produce  "  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs  "  of  her  own,  as  well  as  inherit 
psalms  bequeathed  to  her  by  the  Jewish  Church ;  a 
new  salvation  demanding  a  new  song,  as  Augustine 
delights  so  often  to  remind  us. 

It  was  of  the  essence  of  a  Greek  v^vo<;  that  it 
should  be  addressed  to,  or  be  otherwise  in  praise  of, 
a  god,  or  of  a  hero,  that  is,  in  the  strictest  sense  of 
that  word,  of  a  deified  man ;  as  Callisthenes  (Arrian, 
iv.  11)  reminds  Alexander  ;  who,  claiming  hymns 
for  himself,  or  suffering  them  to  be  addressed  to 
him,  implicitly  accepted  not  human  honours  but 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  14:5 

divine  {vfivoi  fiev  €9  tov<;  deov^  iroiovvTaiy  eiraivov  Be 
€?  dvOpdoTTovfi).  In  the  gradual  breaking  down  of 
tlie  distinction  between  human  and  divine,  with 
the  snatching  on  the  part  of  men  of  divine  honours, 
the  vfjbvo<i  came  more  and  more  to  be  applied  to 
men  ;  although  this  not  without  observation  (Athe- 
nasus,  vi.  62  ;  xv.  21,  22).  When  the  word  was  as- 
sumed into  the  language  of  the  Church,  this  essen- 
tial distinction  clung  to  it  still.  A  psalm  might  be 
a  De  profundis,  the  story  of  man's  deliverance,  or  a 
commemoration  of  mercies  which  he  had  received ; 
and  of  a  "  spiritual  song  "  much  the  same  could  be 
said :  a  hymn  must  always  be  more  or  less  of  a 
Magnificat^  a  direct  address  of  praise  and  glory  to 
God.  Thus  Jerome  {I71  EjpJies.  v.  19) :  ^  Breviter 
hymnos  esse  dicendum,  qui  fortitudinem  et  majes- 
tatem  prsedicant  Dei,  et  ejusdem  semper  vel  bene- 
ficia,  vel  facta,  mirantur.'  Cf.  Origen,  Con.  Cels, 
viii.  67 ;  and  a  precious  fragment,  probably  of  the 
Presbyter  Cains,  preserved  by  Eusebius  {H.  E, 
V.  28) :  ylraXfjLol  Be  oaoL  koL  (pBal  dBeXcficov  dnr  dpyri^ 
VTTO  TTKTTOJV  ypa(j)eL(Tai,  rov  Aoyov  rod  Geov  rov  Xpco"- 
Tov  v/jLvova-L  6€oXoyovvTe<;.  Augustine  in  more  places 
than  one  states  the  notes  of  what  in  his  mind  are 
the  essentials  of  a  hymn— which  are  three.  It  must 
be  sung.  It  must  be  praise.  It  must  be  to  God. 
Thus  Enarr.  in  Ps,  Ixxii.  1 :  '  Hymni  laudes  sunt 
Pei  cum  cantico :  hymni  cantus  sunt  contineiit§8 
1        " 


146  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

laudes  Dei.  Si  sit  laus,  et  non  sit  Dei,  non  est 
hymnus ;  si  sit  laus,  et  Dei  laus,  et  non  cantetur, 
non  est  hymnus.  Oportet  ergo  ut,  si  sit  hymnus, 
habeat  hsec  tria,  et  laudem,  et  Dei,  et  canticum.' 
Qii.Enarr.  inPs.  cxlviii.  14:  'Hymnus  scitis  quid 
est?  Cantus  est  cum  laude  Dei.  Si  laudas  Deum, 
et  non  cantas,  non  dicis  hymnum ;  si  cantas,  et  non 
laudas  Deum,  non  dicis  hymnum ;  si  laudas  aliud 
quod  non  pertinet  ad  laudem  Dei,  etsi  cantando 
laudes,  non  dicis  hymnum.  Hymnus  ergo  tria  ista 
habet,  et  cantum,  et  laudem,  et  Dei.'^  Compare 
Gregory  of  Nazianzum  : 

iiraivSs  ia-Tiv  ev  ri  ruv  i/icou  <ppd(rai, 
ahos  S*  iiraivos  ^Is  Qebv  ffefida-fjcios, 
6  8'  vfxvosy  cdvos  ififx^X'fjSi  us  o^ofiai. 

But  though,  as  appears  from  these  quotations, 
v/ivo<;  in  the  fourth  century  was  a  word  freely 
adopted  in  the  Church,  this  was  by  no  means  the 
case  at  a  somewhat  earlier  day.  l^otwithstanding 
the  authority  which  St.  Paul's  employment  of  it  in 
these  two  places  which  have  been  so  often  referred 
to  might  seem  to  give  it,  it  nowhere  occurs  in  the 
writings  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  nor  in  those  of 

*  It  is  not  very  easy  to  follow  Augustine  in  his  distinction  between 
a  psalm  and  a  canticle  [canticum].  Indeed  he  acknowledges  himself 
that  he  has  not  arrived  at  any  clearness  on  this  matter  {Enarr.  in  Fs. 
Ixvii.  1 ;  of.  in  Ps.  iv.  1 ;  cf.  Hilary,  Prol  in  Lib,  Psalm.  §§19-21). 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  1^7 

Justin  Martyr,  nor  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  / 
only  once  in  Tertullian  {ad  Uxor.  ii.  8).  It  is  at 
least  a  plausible  explanation  of  this  that  the  word 
was  so  steeped  in  heathenism,  so  linked  with  pro- 
fane associations,  there  were  so  many  hymns  to 
Zeus,  to  Hermes,  to  Aphrodite,  and  the  rest,  that 
the  early  Christians  shrunk  from  and  would  not 
willingly  employ  it. 

If  we  ask  ourselves  what  probably  the  hymns, 
which  St.  Paul  desired  that  the  faithful  should  sing 
among  themselves,  were,  we  may,  I  think,  confi- 
dently assume  that  these  observed  the  law  to  which 
the  heathen  hymns  were  submitted,  and  were  hymns 
to  God.  Inspired  specimens  of  the  vixvo'^  we  may 
find  at  Luke  i.  46—55  ;  68—79  ;  Acts  iv.  24 ;  such 
also  probably  was  that  which  Paul  and  Silas 
made  to  be  heard  from  the  depth  of  their  Philip- 
pian  dungeon  {vfivovv  top  ©eov,  Acts  xvi.  25).  How 
noble,  how  magnificent  uninspired  hymns  could 
prove  we  have  evidence  in  the  Te  Deum,  in  the 
Ye?ii  Creator  Spiritus,  and  in  many  a  later  heritage 
for  ever  which  the  Church  has  acquired.  That  the 
Church,  at  the  time  when  St.  Paul  wrote,  brought 
into  a  new  and  marvellous  world  of  realities,  would 
be  rich  in  these  we  might  be  sure,  even  if  no  evi- 
dence existed  to  this  efi"ect,  of  which  however  there 
is  abundance,  more  than  one  fragment  of  a  hymn 
being  probably  embedded  in  St.  Paul's  own  Epistles 


148  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

(Ephes.  V.  14 ;  1  Tim.  iii.  16).  And  as  it  was  quite 
impossible  that  the  Cliristian  Clmrcli,  mightily  re- 
leasing itself,  though  not  with  any  revolutionary 
violence,  from  the  Jewish  synagogue,  should  fall 
into  that  mistake  into  which  some  portions  of  the 
[Reformed  Church  afterward  ran,  we  may  be  sure 
that  it  adopted  into  liturgic  use  not  psalms  only, 
but  also  hymns,  singing  hymns  to  Christ  as  to  God 
(Pliny,  Ejp,  x.  96) ;  though  this,  as  we  may  well 
conclude,  to  a  larger  extent  in  Churches  gathered 
out  of  the  heathen  world  than  in  those  where  a 
strong  Jewish  element  was  found. 

TLZri  {=z  aoihrj)  is  the  only  word  of  this  group 
which  the  Apocalypse  knows  (v.  9  ;  xiv.  3  ;  xv.  3). 
St.  Paul,  on  the  two  occasions  when  he  employs  it, 
adds  TTvevfiaTLKij  to  it ;  and  this,  no  doubt,  because 
o)8^  by  itself  might  mean  any  kind  of  song,  of  bat- 
tle, of  harvest,  or  festal,  or  hymeneal,  while  -^akfios 
from  its  Hebrew,  and  vfivo^  from  its  Greek,  use, 
did  not  require  any  such  qualifying  adjective.  It 
will  at  once  be  evident  that  this  epithet  thus  ap- 
plied does  not  necessarily  imply  that  these  whai 
were  divinely  inspired,  any  more  than  the  avr)p 
irveviiaTLKo^  was  an  inspired  man  (1  Cor.  iii.  1 ;  Gal. 
vi.  1) ;  but  only  that  they  were  such  as  were  com- 
posed by  spiritual  men,  and  had  to  do  with  spirit- 
ual things.  How,  it  may  be  asked,  are  we  to  dis- 
tinguish these  "  spiritual  songs  "  from  the  "psalms  " 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  149 

and  "  hymns "  with  which  thej  are  associated  bj 
St.  Panl  ?  If  the  first  word  represents  the  heritage 
of  sacred  song  which  the  Christian  Chnrch  derived 
from  the  Jewish,  the  second  and  third  will  between 
them  express  what  more  of  this  sacred  song  it  pro- 
duced out  of  its  bosom  ;  bnt  with  a  difference. 
What  the  vfivoi  were,  we  have  already  seen ;  but 
Christian  feeling  will  soon  have  expanded  into  a 
wider  range  of  poetic  utterances  than  those  in  which 
there  is  a  direct  address  to  the  Deity.  If  we  turn 
for  instance  to  Keble's  Christian  Year,  or  Herbert's 
Temple,  there  are  many  poems  in  both  which,  as 
they  certainly  are  not  psalms,  so  as  little  do  they 
possess  the  characteristics  of  hymns ;  but  which 
would  most  justly  be  entitled  "  spiritual  songs ; " 
and  in  almost  all  our  collections  of  so-called 
"  hymns  "  at  the  present  day,  there  are  not  a  few 
which  by  much  juster  title  would  bear  this  name. 
Calvin:  'Sub  his  tribus  nominibus  complexus  est 
[Paulus]  omne  genus  canticorum ;  quae  ita  vulgo 
distinguuntur,  ut  Psalmus  sit  in  quo  concinendo 
adhibetur  musicum  aliquod  instrumentum  prseter 
linguam  ;  hymnus  proprie  sit  laudis  canticum,  sive 
assa  voce,  sive  aliter  canatur ;  oda  non  laudes  tan- 
turn  contineat,  sed  parseneses,  et  alia  argumenta.' 


150  6TN0NTMS   OF  THE 


§  xxix. — ajpd/JbfiaTOf;,  iSi(OT7j<i. 

These  words  occur  together  Acts  iv.  13  ;  dypafi- 
fjiaro^i  nowhere  else  in  the  IN".  T.,  but  ISmri]^  on  four 
other  occasions  (1  Cor.  xiv.  16,  23,  24 ;  2  Cor.  xi.  6). 
In  that  first-named  passage  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  according  to  the  natural  rhetoric  of  human 
speech  the  second  word  is  stronger  than  the  first, 
adds  something  to  it;  thus  our  Translators  have 
evidently  understood  them,  rendering  dypd/jL/jLaro^; 
'  unlearned,'  and  IBlcottj^;  '  ignorant ; '  and  so  Ben- 
gel  :  '  djpdfjifMaTo<;  est  rudis,  IBlcott]^  rudior.' 

"When  we  seek  more  accurately  to  distinguish 
them,  and  to  detect  the  exact  notion  which  each 
conveys,  the  second,  as  the  word  of  more  various 
and  subtle  uses,  will  mainly  claim  our  attention. 
^Aypd/jb/jLaTO';  need  not  occupy  us  long ;  it  is  simply 
illiterate  (John  vii.  13;  Acts  xxvi.  24;  2  Tim.  iii. 
15) ;  the  drypd/ji/iaTo<;  being  joined  by  Plato  with 
opeco^,  rugged  as  the  mountaineer  {Orit.  109  d), 
with  d/xovao^  {Tim.  23  h) ;  by  Plutarch  set  over 
against  the  fjLefjLov<jo)fjLevo<;  {Adv.  Col.  26). 

But  l8La)T7]<;  is  a  far  more  comj)lex  word.  Its 
primary  idea,  the  point  from  which,  so  to  speak, 
etymologic  ally  it  starts,  is  that  of  the  private  man, 
occupying  himself  with  rd  tSia,  as  contrasted  with 


NEW  TESTAMENT,  151 

the  political ;  the  man  unclothed  with  office,  as  set 
over  against  and  distinguished  from  him  who  bears 
some  office  in  the  state.  But  then  as  it  lay  very 
deep  in  the  Greek  mind,  being  one  of  the  strongest 
convictions  there,  that  in  public  life  the  true  educa- 
tion of  the  man  and  the  citizen  consisted,  a  con- 
temptuous use  lay  very  near  to  IStoorrjf;,  which  it 
did  not  fail  presently  to  make  its  own.  The  IBtcori]^, 
unexercised  in  business,  unaccustomed  to  deal  with 
his  fellow-men,  is  unpractical ;  and  thus  the  word 
is  joined  with  aTrpdy/jLcov  by  Plato  {JRep,  x.  620  c ; 
cf.  Plutarch,  De  Virt.  et  Yit.  4),  with  dirpaKTo^  by 
Plutarch  {Phil,  esse  cum  Princ.  1),  who  sets  him 
over  against  the  'Tr6kiTiKo<^  koI  irpaKTLKo^.  But  more 
than  this,  he  is  boorish,  and  thus  IBlcott)^  is  linked 
with  djpoLKo^i  (Chrysostom,  In  1  Ep.  Cor.  Horn.  3), 
with  aTralSevTO^  (Plutarch,  Arist.  et  Men.  Comp.  ly 
The  history  of  the  v/ord  by  no  means  stops  here, 
though  we  have  followed  it  as  far  as  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  explain  its  association  at  Acts  iv.  13 
with  dypdfjL/jLatofi,  and  the  points  of  likeness  and  dif- 
ference between  them.  But  for  the  sake  of  the 
other  passages  where  it  occurs,  and  to  explain  why 
it  should  be  used  at  1  Cor.  xiv.  16,  23,  24,  and  ex- 
actly in  what  sense,  it  may  be  well  to  pursue  this  his- 

^  There  is,  I  may  observe,  an  excellent  discussion  on  the  successive 
meanings  of  IStc^TTjs  in  Bishop  Horsley's  Tracts  in  Controversy  with 
Dr.  Priestly^  Appendix^  Disquisition  Second,  pp.  475 — 485. 


152  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

tory  a  little  further.  The  circumstance  is  explain- 
ed by  a  singular  characteristic  of  the  word,  which 
is  not  easy  to  describe,  but  which  a  few  examples  at 
once  make  intelligible.  There  lies  continually  in  it 
a  negation  of  that  particular  skill,  knowledge,  pro- 
fession, standing,  over  against  which  it  is  antitheti- 
cally set,  and  not  of  any  other  except  that  alone. 
For  example,  is  the  IBlcot7)(;  set  over  against  the 
By/jLcovpyo^  (as  by  Plato,  Theag.  124  c),  he  is  the  un- 
skilled man  as  set  over  against  the  skilled  artificer ; 
any  other  dexterity  he  may  possess,  but  that  of  the 
h7)fitovp<y6<;  is  denied  him.  Is  he  set  over  against 
the  laTp6<;y  he  is  one  ignorant  of  the  physician's  art 
(Plato,  I^ep.  iii.  389  h;  Philo,  Be  Conf.  Zing,  Y) ; 
against  the  o-ocpLari]';,  he  is  one  unacquainted  with 
the  dialectic  fence  of  the  sophists  (Xenophon,  De 
Yenat.  13 ;  cf  Hiero,  i.  2 ;  Lucian,  Fisc,  34  ;  Plu- 
tarch, Symjp.  iv.  2.  3).  Those  unpractised  in  gym- 
nastic exercises  are  ISicorat  as  contrasted  with  the 
aQ\7)Tai  (Xenophon,  Iliero^  iv.  6  ;  Philo,  De  Sept. 
6) ;  subjects  are  ISLcorac  as  contrasted  with  their 
prince  (Id.  De  Ahra/i.  33) ;  the  underlings  in  the 
harvest-field  are  Ihuwrai  kol  vTrrjpirat  as  distinguish- 
ed from  the  rjy6jj,6ve<:  (Id.  De  Somn.  ii.  4) ;  and  last- 
ly, the  whole  congregation  of  Israel  are  IBiwrai  as 
contrasted  with  the  priests  {De  Yit.  Mos.  iii.  29). 
With  these  uses  of  the  word  to  assist  us,  it  is  im- 
possible, I  think,  to  come  to  any  other  conclusion 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  163 

than  tliat  the  IBicoTac  of  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xiv.  16, 23, 
24)  are  the  plain  believers,  with  no  special  spiritual 
gifts,  as  distinguished  from  those  who  were  in  the 
possession  of  these  ;  even  as  elsewhere  they  are  the 
lay  members  of  the  Church  as  contrasted  with  those 
vrh.0  minister  in  the  Word  and  Sacraments ;  for  it 
is  ever  the  word  with  which  it  is  at  once  combined 
and  contrasted  which  determines  its  use. 

But  to  return  to  the  matter  immediately  before 
us.  For  this  it  will  be  sufficient  to  say  that  when 
the  Pharisees  recognized  Peter  and  James  as  men 
aypdfjL/jLaroc  Koi  lBi(aTaL,  in  the  first  word  they  ex- 
pressed more  the  absence  in  them  of  book-learning, 
and,  confining  as  they  would  have  done  this  to  the 
O.  T.,  the  lepa  jpafju/jLara,  and  to  the  glosses  of  the 
elders  upon  these,  their  lack  of  acquaintance  with 
such  lore  as  St.  Paul  had  learned  at  the  feet  of 
Gamaliel ;  in  the  second  the  absence  in  them  of 
that  education  which  men  insensibly  acquire  by 
mingling  with  those  who  have  important  afi*airs  to 
transact,  and  by  themselves  sharing  in  the  transac- 
tion of  such.  Setting  aside  that  higher  training  of 
the  heart  and  the  intellect  which  comes  from  direct 
contact  with  God  and  his  tnith,  no  doubt  books 
and  public  life,  literature  and  politics,  are  the  two 
most  effectual  organs  of  mental  and  moral  training 
which  the  world  has  at  its  command — the  second, 
as  needs  hardly  be  said,  immeasurably  more  effec- 


154  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

tual  than  the  fii'st.  He  is  aypd/jLfiaTo<;  who  has  not 
shared  in  the  first,  ISccottj?  who  has  no  part  in  the 
second. 


§  XXX. — B0K6C0,  cj^aivofiaL. 

OuK  Translators  have  not  always  observed  the 
distinction  which  exists  between  BoKelv  =  *  videri,' 
and  (f)aive(rdaL  =  '  apparere.'  AoKelv  expresses  the 
subjective  mental  estimate  or  opinion  about  a  mat- 
ter which  men  form,  their  Bo^a  concerning  it,  which 
may  be  right  (Acts  xv.  28 ;  1  Cor.  iv.  9 ;  vii.  40  ; 
of.  Plato,  Ti7n.  61  d,  Bo^a  -oXtjOtj^;),  but  which  may 
be  wrong;  involving,  as  it  always  does,  the  possi- 
bility of  error  (2  Mace.  ix.  10  ;  Matt.  vi.  7 ;  Mark 
vi.  49  ;  John  xvi.  2 ;  Acts  xxvii.  13 ;  cf.  Plato, 
Gorg.  458  a,  Bo^a  yjrevBij^ ;  Xenophon,  Oi/r.  i.  6. 
22  ;  Mem.  i.  T.  4 ;  Icrxvpov,  firj  ovra,  BoKelv,  to  have 
a  false  reputation  for  strength) ;  (jyalveadai  on  the 
contrary  expresses  how  a  matter  phenomenally 
shows  and  presents  itself,  with  no  necessary  assump- 
tion of  any  beholder  at  all ;  suggesting  an  opposi- 
tion not  to  the  6V,  but  to  the  voovfievov.  Tlius, 
when  Plato  {Bep.  408  a)  says  of  certain  heroes  in 
the  Trojan  war,  ayaOol  Trpo?  tov  Trokejxov  i<j)dvr)crav, 
he  does  not  mean  they  seemed  good  for  the  war 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  165 

and  were  not,  but  tliey  showed  good,  with  tlie  tacit 
consequence  that  what  they  showed,  they  were  as 
well.  So  too,  when  Xenophon  writes  i(j)aLveTo  lyyia 
XTnrov  {Allah,  i.  6.  1),  he  wonld  imply  that  horses 
had  been  actually  there,  and  left  their  prints  on  th^ 
ground.  He  could  only  have  used  SoKelv,  supposing 
him  to  have  wished  to  say,  that  Cyrus  and  his  com- 
pany took  for  the  tracks  of  horses  what  indeed  might 
have  been,  but  what  also  might  not  have  been,  such 
at  all ;  cf.  Hem.  iii.  10.  2.  Zeune :  ^  BoKelv  cernitur 
in  opinioire,  quae  falsa  esse  potest  et  vana;  sed 
(palvecrOac  plerumque  est  in  re  extra  mentem,  quam- 
vis  nemo  opinatur.'  Thus  BoKel  <f)aLV€(T6ac  (Plato, 
Fhcedr.  269  d;  Legg,  xii.  960  d). 

Even  in  passages  where  Boxeiv  may  be  exchanged 
with  elvai,  it  does  not  lose  the  proper  meaning  which 
Zeune  gives  to  it  here.  There  is  ever  a  predomi- 
nant reference  to  the  public  opinion  and  estimate, 
rather  than  to  the  actual  being ;  however  the  for- 
mer may  be  the  just  echo  of  the  latter  (Pro v.  xxvii. 
14).  Thus,  while  there  is  no  slightest  touch  of 
irony  in  St.  Paul's  use  of  ol  hoKovvre^  at  Gal.  ii.  2, 
ol  BoKovvT€<;  elvaC  rt  (ii.  6),  and  manifestly  could  not 
be,  seeing  that  he  is  so  characterizing  some  of  the 
chiefest  of  his  fellow  Apostles,  the  words 'at  the 
same  time  express  rather  the  reputation  in  which 
they  were  held  in  the  Church  than  that  which  in 
themselves  they  were,  however  this  reputation  was 


156  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

only  the  true  measure  of  their  worth  (=  eTrU'qfioL, 
Eom.  xvi.  7) ;  compare  Euripides,  Sec.  295,  and 
Porphyry,  Be  Abst.  ii.  40,  where  ol  hoKovvre^  in 
like  manner  is  put  absolutely,  and  set  over  against 
TO.  ttXijOtj.  In  the  same  way  ol  hoKovvre^  dp^etv  T(av 
idvcop  (Mark  x.  42)  casts  no  doubt  on  the  reality  of 
the  rule  of  these,  for  see  Matt.  xx.  25,  but  as  little 
is  it  redundant.  It  means  those  who  are  acJcnow- 
ledged  as  rulers  of  the  Gentiles ;  cf.  Josephus,  Antt 
xix.  6.  3 ;  Susan.  5  ;  and  Winer,  Gramm.  §  Ixvii.  4. 
But  as  on  one  side  the  mental  conception  may 
have,  but  also  may  not  have,  a  corresponding  truth 
in  the  world  of  realities,  so  on  the  other  the  appear- 
ance may  have  a  reality  behind  it,  and  ^alvecrdav  is 
often  synonymous  with  elvau  and  'yi'yveadai,  (Matt, 
ii.  7 ;  xiii.  26) ;  but  it  may  also  have  none ;  (paLvo- 
/jL6va  for  instance  are  set  off  against  ra  ovra  rfj 
aX7)d6ia  by  Plato  {Bep.  596  e) ;  being  the  reflec- 
tions of  things,  as  seen  in  a  mirror :  or  it  may  be 
utterly  false,  as  is  the  show  of  goodness  which  the 
hypocrite  makes  (Matt,  xxiii.  28).  It  must  not  be 
assumed  that  in  this  latter  case  <f>aive<T6at,  runs  into 
the  meaning  of  BokcIv,  and  that  the  distinction  is 
broken  down  between  them.  It  still  subsists  in  the 
objective  character  of  the  one,  and  the  subjective 
character  of  the  other.  Thus,  at  Matt,  xxiii.  27, 
28,  the  contrast  is  not  between  what  other  men  tooTc 
the  Pharisees  to  be,  and  what  they  really  were, 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  157 

but  what  they  showed  themselves  to  other  men 
{(patveade  toI<;  dv6pa)7roi,<;  BUacoi,),  and  what  thej 
were  indeed. 

AoKelv  signifying  ever,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
subjective  estimate  which  maybe  formed  of  a  thing, 
not  the  objective  show  and  seeming  which  it  ac- 
tually possesses,  it  will  follow  that  our  Translation 
of  Jam.  i.  26  is  not  perfectly  satisfactory :  "  If  any 
man  among  you  secTn  to  he  religious  [poKel  OprjarKo^ 
ehat],  and  bridleth  not  his  tongue,  but  deceiveth 
his  own  heart,  this  man's  religion  is  vain."  This 
verse,  as  it  here  stands,  must  before  now  have  per- 
plexed many.  How,  it  will  have  been  asked,  can  a 
man  "  seem  to  be  religious,"  that  is,  present  him- 
self to  others  as  such,  when  his  religious  pretensions 
are  belied  and  refuted  by  the  allowance  of  an  un- 
bridled tongue  ?  But  render  the  words,  "  If  any 
man  among  you  think  himself  religious  "  (cf.  Gal. 
vi.  3,  where  Boxel  is  rightly  so  translated ;  as  is  the 
Yulgate  here,  "  se  putat  religiosum  esse "),  ^'  and 
bridleth  not  his  tongue,  &c."  and  all  will  then  be 
plain.  It  is  the  man's  own  subjective  estimate  of 
his  spiritual  condition  which  BoKel  expresses,  an  esti- 
mate which  the  following  words  declare  to  be  alto- 
gether erroneous.*    If  the  Yulgate  in  dealing  here 


*  Compare  Heb.  iv.  1,  where  for  Sok^  the  Yulgate  has  rightly 
'  existimetur.' 


158  SrCTONTMS   OF  THE 

with  one  of  these  words  is  right,  while  our  TransJa. 
tors  are  wrong,  elsewhere  in  dealing  with  the  other 
it  is  wrong,  while  they  are  right.  At  Matt.  vi.  18 
C'  that  thou  appear  not  unto  men  to  fast "),  it  has 
^  ne  videaris,'  although  at  ver.  16  it  had  rightly  '  ut 
appareant ; '  but  the  disciples  are  here  warned  not 
against  the  hypocrisy  of  wishing  to  be  supposed  to 
fast  when  they  did  not,  as  these  words  might  imply, 
but  against  the  ostentation  of  wishing  to  he  known 
to  fast,  when  they  did ;  as  lies  plainly  in  the  ottw? 
fjurj  (j>avfj^  of  the  original. 

The  force  of  (paipeaOai,  attained  here,  is  missed 
in  another  place  of  our  Yersion;  although  not 
through  any  confusion  between  it  and  BoKetvy  but 
rather  between  it  and  (j^alveLv,  there.  We  render 
iv  oh  cj^alveade  co?  (f>o)a-Ti]pe<;  iv  Koaficp  (Phil.  ii.  15), 
"  among  whom  ye  shine  as  lights  in  the  world." 
To  justify  "  ye  shine  "  in  this  place,  which  is  com- 
mon to  all  the  Yersions  of  the  English  Hexapla,  St. 
Paul  should  have  written  <^aiveT6  (John  i.  5  ;  2  Pet. 
i.  19 ;  Kev.  i.  16),  and  not,  as  he  has  written,  </>at- 
vecrde.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that,  while  the  Yul- 
gate,  having  '  lucetis,'  shares  and  anticipates  our 
error,  an  earlier  Yersion  was  free  from  it,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  the  form  in  which  the  verse  is  quoted  by 
Augustine  (Enarr.  in  Ps,  cxlvi.  4) :  ^  In  quibus  ap^ 
paretia  tanquam  luminaria  in  cselo.' 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  159 


§  xxxi. — ZoioVj  Orjplov. 

There  are  passages  out  of  niTmber  where  one  of 
these  words  might  be  employed  quite  as  fitly  as  the 
other,  even  as  there  are  many  in  which  they  are 
used  interchangeably,  as  by  Plutarch,  De  Cap.  ex 
In,  Util,  2.  This  is  not  however  sufficient  to  prove 
that  there  is  no  distinction  between  them,  if  others 
occur,  however  few,  where  one  would  be  fit  and 
the  other  not ;  or  where,  though  neither  would  be 
unfit,  one  would  yet  possess  a  greater  fitness  than 
would  the  other.  The  distinction,  latent  in  the 
other  cases,  because  there  is  nothing  to  evoke  it, 
emerges  in  these. 

The  difierence  between  ^wov  and  Orjpiov  is  the 
difierence  not  between  two  terms  in  any  respect 
coordinate ;  one,  on  the  contrary — that  is,  the  se- 
cond— is  wholly  subordinate  to  the  first,  is  a  less 
included  in  a  greater.  All  creatures  that  live  on 
earth,  including  man  himself,  \oytKov  koI  ttoXitckov 
^ooov,  as  Plutarch  {De  Am.  Prol.  3)  so  grandly 
describes  him,  are  Jwa  (Aristotle,  Hist.  Anim.  i.  5. 
1) ;  nay,  God  Himself  is  tjbiov  dOdvarov  (Plato, 
Def.),  being  indeed  the  only  one  to  whom  life  by 
absolute  right  belongs ;  (j)a/Jbev  Be  rov  Sebv  elvai  ^coov 
dtBiov  apia-Tov  (Aristotle,  Iletaph.  xii.  7).     It  is  true 


160  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

that  there  is  no  example  of  this  employment  of 
^Mov  to  designate  man  in  the  IST.  T. ;  but  see  Plato, 
Pol  271  e ;  Xenophon,  Oi/r.  i.  1.  3  ;  Wisd.  xix.  20 ; 
still  less  to  designate  God  ;  for  whom,  as  not  merely 
living,  but  as  being  absolute  life,  the  one  fountain, 
of  life,  the  avro^wov,  the  fitter  and  more  reverent 
^0)1]  is  retained  (John  i.  4 ;  1  John  i.  2).  Li  its 
ordinary  use  ^(oov  covers  the  same  extent  of  mean- 
ing as  our  own  word  '  animal,'  having  generally, 
but  by  no  means  universally  (Plutarch,  De  Garr, 
22 ;  Heb.  xiii.  11),  aXo^ov  or  some  such  epithet  at- 
tached (2  Pet.  ii.  12  ;  Jude  10). 

0r}pLov,  a  diminutive  of  6i]p,  which  in  its  JEolic 
form  (prjp  gives  the  Latin  '  fera,'  and  appears  in  its 
more  usual  shape  in  the  German  '  Thier '  and  our 
own  *  deer,'  like  ')(^pvaiov,  /Sl/SXlov,  (popTLov,  dyyecov, 
and  so  many  other  words  in  the  Greek  language 
(see  Fischer,  Prol  de  Yit.  Lex.  W.  T.  p.  256),  has 
quite  left  behind  its  diminutive  signification  ;  how 
completely  it  is  felt  to  have  done  so  is  remarkably 
attested  in  the  modern  compound  '  megatherium  ; ' 
and  compare  Xenophon,  Cyrojr>.  i.  4.  11,  drjpia  fie- 
yaXa.  Neither  does  Orjplov  exclusively  mean  the 
mischievous  and  cruel  beast,  for  see  Heb.  xii.  20 ; 
Exod.  xix.  13;  at  the  same  time  it  has  predomi- 
nantly this  meaning  (Mark  i.  13 ;  Acts  xxvjii.  4, 
5) ;  OrjpLa  at  Acts  xi.  6  being  distinguished  from  re- 
rpuTToBa.     It  is  very  noticeable  that,  numerous  as 


~KEW    TESTsiMENT.  161 

are  tlie  passages  of  the  Septuagint  where  beasts  for 
sacrifice  are  mentioned,  it  is  never  under  this  name; 
and  the  reason  of  this  is  evident,  namely,  that  the 
brutal,  bestial  element  is  that  which  the  word  brings 
prominently  forward,  and  not  that  wherein  the 
lower  animals  are  akin  to  man,  not  that  therefore 
which  gives  them  a  fitness  to  be  oflfered  as  substi- 
tutes for  man.  Here,  too,  we  have  an  explanation 
of  the  frequent  transfer  of  OrjpLov  and  OrjpicoSrj^,  as  in 
Latin  of  '  bestia '  and  '  bellua,'  to  fierce  and  brutal 
men  (Tit.  i.  12 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  32  ;  Joseph  us,  Antt. 
xvii.  5.  5 ;  Arrian,  In  Ej^ict.  ii.  9). 

All  this  makes  the  more  to  be  regretted  the 
breaking  down  for  the  English  reader  of  the  dis- 
tinction between  fwoi/  and  drjpiov  in  the  Apocalypse, 
by  the  rendering  of  ^cwa  as  *  beasts '  throughout  that 
Book.  As  I  could  only  say  over  again  in  other 
words  what  I  had  said  before,  I  will  make  no  apol- 
ogy for  quoting  on  this  matter  some  words  of  my 
own  {On  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Nevj  Testa- 
ment^ 2d  edit.  p.  102)  *:  '  One  must  always  regret, 
and  the  regret  has  been  often  expressed — it  was  so 
by  Broughton  almost  as  soon  as  our  Version  was 
published — that  in  the  Apocalypse  our  Translators 
should  have  rendered  6r]piov  and  ^(aov  by  the  same 
word,  '  beast.'  Both  play  important  parts  in  the 
book  ;  both  belong  to  its  higher  symbolism ;  but  to 
portions  the  most  different.     The  ^Sia  or  "  living 


162  STKONYMS   OF  THE 

creatures,"  wliicli  stand  before  the  throne,  in  whicli 
dwells  the  fulness  of  all  creaturely  life,  as  it  gives 
praise  and  glory  to  God  (iv.  6 — 9  ;  v.  6 ;  vi.  1 ;  and 
often)  form  part  of  the  heavenly  symbolism ;  the 
Q7]pia,  the  first  beast  and  the  second,  which  rise  up, 
one  from  the  bottomless  pit  (xi.  Y),  the  other  from 
the  sea  (xiii.  1),  of  which  the  one  makes  war  upon 
the  two  Witnesses,  the  other  opens  his  month  in 
blasj)hemies,  these  form  part  of  the  hellish  sym- 
bolism. To  confound  these  and  those  under  a  com- 
mon designation,  to  call  those  '  beasts '  and  these 
*  beasts,'  would  be  an  oversight,  even  granting  the 
name  to  be  suitable  to  both ;  it  is  a  more  serious 
one,  when  tlie  word  used,  bringing  out,  as  this  must, 
the  predominance  of  the  lower  animal  life,  is  ap- 
plied to  glorious  creatures  in  the  very  court  and 
presence  of  Heaven.  The  error  is  common  to  all 
the  translations.  That  the  Rheims  should  not  have 
escaped  it  is  strange ;  for  the  Yulgate  renders  fwa 
by  '  animalia '  ('  animantia '  would  have  been  still 
better),  and  only  Or^plov  by  '  bestia.'  K  fwa  had  al- 
ways been  rendered  ''  living  creatures,"  this  would 
have  had  the  additional  advantage  of  setting  these 
symbols  of  the  Apocalypse,  even  for  the  English 
reader,  in  an  unmistakeable  connexion  with  Ezek. 
i.  5,  13,  14,  and  often;  where  "living  creature"  is 
the  rendering  in  our  English  Version  of  n^n,  as 
^oiov  is  in  the  Septuagint. 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  163 


xxxii. — vTrep,  avri. 


It  lias  been  often  claimed,  and  in  tlie  interests 
of  an  all-important  truth,  namely  the  vicarious 
character  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  that  in  such  pas- 
sages as  Heb.  ii.  9;  Tit.  ii.  14;  1  Tim.  ii.  6;  GaL 
iii.  13 ;  Luke  xxii.  19,  20  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  21 ;  iii.  18 ; 
iv.  1  ;  Eom.  v.  8  ;  John  x.  15,  in  all  of  which  Christ 
is  said  to  have  died  virep  iravrcov,  virep  tj^mv,  virep 
Tcov  TTpo^drcov,  and  the  like,  virip  shall  be  accepted 
as  equipollent  with  avrl:  it  being  further  urged 
that,  as  dvTL  is  the  preposition  first  of  equiA'alence 
(Homer,  H.  ix.  116,  117)  and  then  of  exchange 
(1  Cor.  xi.  15 ;  Heb.  xii.  16 ;  Matt.  v.  38),  virip 
must  in  the  passages  referred  to  above  be  regarded 
as  having  the  same  force.  Each  of  these,  it  is  evi- 
dent, would  thus  become  a  dictum  jprobans  for  a 
truth,  in  itself  most  vital,  namely  that  Christ  suf- 
fered, not  merely  on  our  behalf  and  for  our  good, 
but  also  in  our  room,  and  bearing  that  j)enalty  of 
our  sins  which  we  otherwise  must  have  borne. 
ISTow,  though  some  have  denied,  we  must  yet  ac- 
cept as  certain  that  virkp  has  sometimes  this  mean- 
ing. Thus  in  the  Gorgias  of  Plato,  515  c,  €70)  virep 
aou  dTTOKpLvovfiat,  I  will  answer  in  your  stead ;  cf. 
Thucydides,  i.  141 ;  Euripides,  Alcestis,  712 ;  Poly- 


164  '  SYNONYMS  OF  THE 

bius,  iii.  67.  7 ;  Philem.  13 ;  and  perhaps  1  Cor.  xv. 
29 ;  but  it  is  not  less  certain,  that  in  j)assages  far 
more  numerous  virip  means  no  more  than,  on  be- 
half of,  for  the  good  of ;  thus  Matt.  v.  44 ;  John 
xiii.  37  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  1,  and  continually.  It  must  be 
admitted,  I  think,  to  follow  from  this,  that  had  we 
i\\  the  Scripture  only  statements  to  the  effect  that 
Christ  died  virep  i)ijlwv,  that  He  tasted  death  virep 
iravTo^,  it  would  be  impossible  to  found  on  these 
any  irrefragable  proof  that  the  death  of  Christ  was 
vicarious.  He  dying  in  our  stead,  and  Himself  bear- 
ing on  his  Cross  our  sins  and  the  penalty  of  our 
sins  ;  however  we  might  find  it,  as  no  doubt  we  do, 
elsewhere  (Isai.  liii.  4 — 6).  It  is  only  as  having 
other  declarations  to  the  effect  that  Christ  died  avrl 
irdXKwv  (Matt.  xx.  28),  gave  Himself  as  an  avr t- 
Xvrpov  (1  Tim.  ii.  6),  and  bringing  these  others  to 
the  intei'pretation  of  those,  that  we  feel  we  have  a 
perfect  right  to  claim  such  declarations  of  Christ's 
death /b?^  us  as  also  declarations  of  his  death  in  our 
stead.  And  in  them  beyond  doubt  the  preposition 
virep  is  tlie  rather  employed,  that  it  may  embrace 
both  these  meanings,  and  express  how  Christ  died 
at  once  for  our  sakes  (here  it  touches  more  nearly 
on  the  meaning  of  Trepl,  Matt.  xxvi.  28 ;  Mark  xiv. 
24 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  18 ;  Bed  also  once  occurring  in  tliis 
connexion,  1  Cor.  viii.  11),  and  in  our  stead  ;  while 
dvTL  would  only  have  expressed  the  latter. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  165 

Tischendorf,  in  his  little  treatise,  Doctrina  Paiih 
de  vi  mortis  Christi  satisfactorid^  has  some  excel- 
lent remarks  on  this  matter :  '  Fuerunt,  qui  ex  sola 
natura  et  usu  prsepositionis  virep  demonstrare  cona- 
rentnr,  Paulum  docuisse  satisfactionem  Christi  vica- 
riam ;  alii  rursiis  negarunt,  prsepositionem  vTrep  si. 
ISr.  Test,  auctoribus  recte  positam  esse  pro  clptl,  inde 
probaturi  contrarium.  Peccatnm  ntrimque  est. 
Sola  prsepositio  utramqne  pariter  adjuvat  senten- 
tiarum  partem  ;  pariter,  inquam,  ntramque.  'Nsnoa- 
qiie  in  promptu  snnt,  contra  perplurinm  opinionem, 
desumta  ex  mnltis  veterum  Grsecorum  scriptoribns 
loca,  qnse  prsepositioni  virep  significatum,  loco,  vice, 
alicnjus  plane  yindicant,  atque  ipsum  Panlum  eodem 
significatu  eam  nsurpasse,  et  quidem  in  locis,  qnss 
ad  nostram  rem  non  pertinent,  nemini  potest  esse 
dubium  (cf.  Philem.  13 ;  2  Cor.  v.  20 ;  1  Cor.  xv. 
29).  Si  antem  qnseritnr,  cur  hac  potissimnm  prse- 
positione  incerti  et  flnctuantis  significatus  in  re  tarn 
gravi  usns  sit  Apostolus — inest  in  ipsa  prsepositione 
quo  sit  aptior  reliquis  ad  describendam  Christi  mor- 
tem pro  nobis  oppetitam.  Etenim  in  hoc  versari 
rei  summam,  quod  Christus  mortuus  sit  in  commo- 
dum  hominum,  nemo  negat ;  atque  id  quidem  fac- 
tum est  ita,  ut  moreretur  hominum  loco.  Pro  con- 
juncta  significatione  et  commodi  et  vicarii  pra^clare 
ab  Apostolo  adhibita  est  prsepositio  virip.  Itaque 
rectissime,  ut  solet,  contendit  Winerus  noster,  non 


166  STITONYMS   OF  THE 

licere  nobis  in  gravibns  locis,  nbi  de  morte  Cbristi 
agatur,  prsepositionem  virep  simpliciter  =  avri  su- 
mere.  Est  enini  plane  Latinorum  ^j>r6>,  nostrum y^i77\ 
Quotiescunque  Paiilus  Christum  pro  nobis  mortuum 
esse  docet,  ab  ipsa  notione  vicarii  non  disjunctam 
esse  voluit  notionem  commodi,  neque  umquam  ab 
baC;  quamvis  perquam  aperta  sit,  excludi  illam  in 
ista  formula,  jure  meo  dico.' 


§  xxxiii. — cj)ov€v<;,  av9p(07roKr6vo<;,  GiKapio^, 

Our  Translators  have  rendered  all  these  words 
by  '  murderer,'  a  word  apt  enough  in  the  case  of 
the  first  (Matt.  xxii.  7 ;  1  Pet.  iv.  15 ;  Eev.  xxi.  8), 
but  at  the  same  time  so  general  that  it  keeps  out  of 
sio^ht  characteristic  features  which  the  other  two 
possess. 

^AvOpwTTOKTovo^,  cxactly  corresponding  to  our 
'  manslayer,'  or  '  homicide,'  occurs  in  the  E".  T.  only 
in  the  writings  of  St.  John  (viii.  44 ;  1  Ep.  iii.  15 
bis) ;  it  is  found  also  in  Euripides  {Iphig.  in  Taur. 
390).  On  our  Lord's  lips  the  word  has  its  special 
fitness  ;  no  other  would  have  suited  at  all  so  well ; 
for  his  reference  (John  viii.  44)  is  to  the  great,  and 
in  part  only  too  successful,  assault  on  the  life  natu- 
ral and  the  life  spiritual  of  all  mankind  which  Satan 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  167 

made,  when  planting  sin,  and  throngli  sin  death, 
in  them  who  should  be  the  authors  of  being  to  all 
other  men,  he  poisoned,  as  he  hoped,  the  stream  of 
human  life  at  its  fountain-head.  Satan  was  thus 
0  avOpoiiTOKTovo^  indeed ;  for  he  would  have  fain 
mm'dered  not  this  man  or  that,  but  the  whole  race 
of  mankind. 

XiKapLo^;,  which  only  occurs  once  in  the  K.  T. 
and,  noticeably  enough,  then  on  the  lips  of  a  Roman 
captain  (Acts  xxi.  38),  is  one  of  the  many  Latin 
words  which  we  meet  with  there.  Such  in  not 
inconsiderable  numbers  had  followed  the  Roman 
domination  even  into  those  proviaces  of  the  empire 
that  still  retained  their  own  languasre.  The  '  sica- 
rius,'  in  the  Roman  use  of  the  word,  having  his 
name  from  the  '  sica,'  a  short  sword,  or  rather  po- 
niard or  stiletto,  which  he  wore  and  was  prompt  to 
use,  was  the  hired  bravo  or  swordsman,  of  whom  in 
the  last  days  of  the  Republic,  lawless  men,  the 
Antonies  and  the  Clodiuses,  kept  troops  in  their 
pay  and  oftentimes  about  their  person,  to  remove 
out  of  the  way  any  who  were  obnoxious  to  them. 
The  word  had  found  its  way  into  Palestine,  and 
into  the  Greek,  which  was  spoken  there ;  Josephus 
in  two  instructive  passages  {B.  J.  ii.  13.  3 ;  A7itt. 
XX.  8.  6)  giving  us  full  details  about  those  to  whom 
the  name  of  a-iKaptoi  was  applied.  They  were  as- 
sassins who  sprang  up  in  the  latter  days  of  the  Jew- 


168  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

ish  Commonwealth,  when,  in  token  of  the  approach' 
ing  catastrophe,  all  ties  of  society  were  fast  being 
dissolved.  Concealing  their  short  swords  under 
their  garments  (it  was  from  the  likeness  of  this 
sword  to  the  Eoman  '  sica '  that,  as  Josephns  tells 
US,  they  obtained  their  name),  and  mingling  with 
the  multitude,  especially  at  the  chief  feasts,  they 
stabbed  whom  of  their  enemies  they  would,  and 
then,  taking  part  with  the  bystanders  in  exclama- 
tions of  horror,  effectually  averted  suspicion  from 
themselves. 

It  will  appear  from  what  has  been  said  that 
(f)ovev<i  may  be  any  murderer,  the  genus  of  which 
(TLKapLo^  is  a  species,  this  latter  being  an  assassin, 
using  a  particular  weapon,  and  following  his  trade 
of  blood  in  a  special  manner.  Again,  avOpcoiro- 
KTovo'i  has  a  special  stress  and  emphasis  of  its  own. 
It  bears  on  its  front  that  he  to  whom  this  name  is 
given  is  a  murderer  of  men,  a  homicide ;  while  ^o- 
V6V(;  is  capable  of  vaguer  use,  so  that  it  would  be 
possible  to  characterize  a  wicked  man  as  (f>ovev^  t^9 
€va€^€ia<;,  a  destroyer  of  piety,  though  he  made  no 
direct  attack  on  the  lives  of  men,  or  a  traitor  as 
^ov6v<;  TTjg  iraTpiZo^  (Plutarch,  Prcec.  Ger.  Beijp.  19) ; 
and  such  uses  of  the  word  are  not  unfrequent. 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  169 


§  xxxiv. — TTOvrjpo^y  <f)avko^. 

That  which  is  morally  evil  may  be  contemplated 
on  two  sides,  from  two  points  of  view;  either  on 
the  side  of  its  positive  malignity,  its  will  and  power 
to  work  mischief,  or  else  on  that  of  its  negative 
worthlessness,  and,  so  to  speak,  its  good-for-nothing- 
ness.  TJovrjpo^  contemplates  evil  from  the  former"^ 
point  of  view,  and  (f>av\o<;  from  the  latter. 

Tlovqpo^y  connected  with  ttoz/o?  and  iroveiv,  has 
sometimes,  though  very  rarely,  a  good  sense,  as 
when  Hercules  on  account  of  his  twelve  noble  toils 
is  termed  in  Hesiod  TrovrjpoTaTo^  koI  apia-ro^.  It  is 
then  equal  to  iTrLTrovo^;,  by  which  Suidas  explains  it. 
Yery  much  oftener,  however,  irovrjpo^  is  not  one 
who  himself  labours,  but  who  causes  labours  to 
others;  and  the  point  of  difference  between  it  and 
(^aOXo?,  and  in  a  measure  between  it  and  KaKo^,  is, 
that  in  it  the  positive  activity  of  evil  is  more  de- 
cidedly expressed  than  in  either  of  those.  Thus 
o\frov  irovrjpov  (Plutarch,  Sejpt.  Sap,  Conv.  2)  is  an 
unwholesome  dish ;  acrpLara  irovrjpd  (id.  Quom. 
Adol.  Poet.  4),  wanton  songs,  such  as  corrupt  the 
minds  of  the  young.  Satan  is  emphatically  6  irovr]' 
po^y  as  the  first  author  of  all  the  mischief  in  the 
world  (Matt.  vi.  13;  Ephes.  v.  16;  cf.  Luke  yiij 
8 


170  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

21;  Acts  xix.  12);  evil  beasts  are  always  67]pLa 
irovrjpd  in  the  Septuagint  (Gen.  xxxvii.  33;  Isai. 
XXXV.  9) ;  KaKCL  Oypla  indeed  once  in  the  IlT.  T.  (Tit. 
i.  12),  but  the  meaning  to  be  expressed  is  not  pre- 
cisely the  same ;  so  too  the  evil  eye  is  o^^aX/io? 
irovrjpo^  (Mark  vii.  22) ;  and  compare  John  iii.  19  ; 
vii.  7;  xvii.  15. 

But  while  it  is  thus  with  7rov7jp6<;,  there  are 
words,  I  should  suppose,  in  all  languages,  and 
^aOXo9  is  one  of  them,  which  contemplate  evil  un- 
der another  aspect,  that  namely  of  its  good-for- 
nothingness,  the  impossibility  of  any  good  ever 
coming  forth  from  it.  Thus  'nequam'  (in  strict- 
ness opposed  to  '  frugi ')  and  '  nequitia '  in  Latin ; 
'  vaurien  '  in  French ;  '  naughty '  and  '  naughtiness ' 
in  English ;  '  taugenichts,'  '  schlecht,'  '  schlechtig- 
keit '  in  German ; '  while  on  the  other  hand  '  tu- 
gend  '  (=  '  taugend ')  is  virtue  contemplated  as  use- 
fulness. This  notion  of  worthlessness  is  the  central 
notion  of  (j>av\o<;  (by  some  recognized  in  'faul,' 
'  foul '),  which  in  Greek  runs  successively  through 
the  following  meanings,  light,  mistable,  blown  about 
by  every  wind  (see  Donaldson,  Cratylus,  §  152 ; 
*  synpnymum  ex  levitate  permutatum : '  Matthsei), 
small,  slight  ('  schlecht '  and  '  schlicht '  in  German 

^  Graff,  in  his  Alt-hochdeutsche  Sprachschatz^  p.  138,  ascribes  ia 
like  manner  to  '  bose '  ('  bose ')  an  original  sense  of  weak,  small,  no- 
thing worth, 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  171 

are  only  different  spellings  of  one  and  tlie  same 
word),  mediocre,  of  no  account,  worthless,  bad; 
but  still  bad  predominantly  in  the  sense  of  worth- 
less; thus  ^avKfT]  avXTjTpL^  (Plato,  Oonv.  215  c); 
(pavXo^  ^(t)yp depot;  (Plutarch,  De  AdiiL  et  Am.  6). 
In  agreement  with  this,  the  standing  antithesis  to 
(j)av\o<;  is  Girovhalof;  (Plato,  Legg.  yi.  T6T  a\  vii. 
814  e ;  Philo,  De  Merc.  Mer,  1),  and  after  this  such 
words  as  %/37;o-to?  (Plutarch,  De  And.  Poet.  4) ; 
/caXo?  (id.  De  Adul.  et  Am.  9) ;  i7nei,Ki]<i  (Aristotle, 
MMc.  JVic.  iii.  5.  3) ;  darelot;  (Plutarch,  De  Bejp. 
Stoic.  12) ;  while  those  with  which  it  is  commonly 
associated  are  dxpwTo<;  (Plato,  Lysias^  201  l) ; 
evTeXrjt;  (id.  Degg.  vii.  806  a) ;  ixox6rip6<;  (id.  Gorg. 
486  I) ;  aTOTTo^  (Plutarch,  De  And.  Poet.  12 ;  Conj. 
PrcBC.  48) ;  koivo^  (id.  Ptcbg.  San.  14) ;  aKparijt;  (id. 
Grgll.  8) ;  dv6r)To<i  (id.  De  Comm.  not.  11). 

^aOXo?,  as  used  in  the  IT.  T.,  has  reached  this 
its  latest  meaning ;  and  ra  (j^avXa  irpd^avre^;  are 
set  over  against  ra  d'yaOa  iroLrjaavTe^;,  being  con- 
demned to  "  the  resurrection  of  damnation,"  being 
as  they  are  these  doers  of  evil  things  (John  v.  29). 
We  have  the  same  antithesis  of  cj)avXa  and  dyaOd, 
Phalaris,  J^jp.  144 ;  Plutarch,  De  Plac.  Pldl.  i.  8 ; 
and  this  severer  meaning  is  involved  in  the  word 
in  all  other  places  of  the  IN".  T.  where  it  occm-s 
(John  iii.  20 ;  Tit.  ii.  8  ;  Jam.  iii.  16 ;  cf.  Aristotle, 
EtUc.  Nic.  ii.  6.  18 ;  Philo,  De  Ahrah.  3). 


172  SYNONYMS  OF  THE 


§  XXXV. — el\LKpLvri<;,  Kadap6<;. 

It  is  hard  to  express,  even  wliile  one  may  in- 
stinctively feel,  the  difference  between  elXiKpLvq^i 
and  Ka6ap6<^.  They  occur  continually  together  (Pla- 
to, Phileb,  52  d\  Eusebius,  Prcejy.  Ev.  xv.  15.  4), 
and  the  words  associated  with  the  one  will  be  found 
constantly  in  association  with  the  other. 

ElXi,KpLV7]<;  occurs  only  twice  in  the  N".  T.  (Phil. 
i.  10 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  1),  once  also  in  the  Septuagint 
(Wisd.  vii.  25),  eiKLKplveia  three  times  (1  Cor.  v.  8  ; 
2  Cor.  i.  12 ;  ii.  17).  Its  etymology,  like  that  of 
*  sincere,'  which  is  its  best  English  rendering,  is 
doubtful,  uncertainty  in  this  matter  causing  also 
uncertainty  in  the  breathing.  Some,  as  Stallbaum 
(Plato,  Phcedo,  QQ  a,  note),  connect  with  t\o?,  'tK/q 
{elXeiv,  elXelv),  that  which  is  cleansed  by  much  roll- 
ing  and  shaking  to  and  fro  in  the  sieve ;  '  volubili 
agitatione  secretum  atque  adeo  cribro  purgatum.' 
Another  more  familiar  and  more  beautiful  etymol- 
ogy, if  only  one  could  feel  sufficient  confidence  in 
it,  is  that  w^hich  Losner  indicates  when  he  says, 
'  dicitur  de  iis  rebus  quarum  puritas  ad  soils  splen- 
dorem  exigitur,'  6  ev  rfj  ei\r}  KeKpifxevo^;,  held  up  to 
the  sunlight  and  in  that  proved  and  approved.  Cer- 
tainly the  uses  of  the  word,  so  far  as  they  afford  an 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  173 

argument,  and  there  is  an  instinct  and  traditionary 
feeling  wliicli  leads  to  a  word's  correct  use,  even 
when  its  derivation  has  been  altogether  lost  sight  of, 
are  very  much  in  favour  of  the  former  etymology. 
ISTot  the  clear,  the  transparent,  but  the  purged,  the 
winnowed,  the  unmingled,  is  the  constant  sense 
which  the  word  possesses;  as  witness  those  with 
which  it  is  continually  found  associated,  such  as 
afMiyrj<;  (Plato,  Menex.  245  d;  Plutarch,  Qucest. 
Rom.  26) ;  clijlikto^  (id.  De  Def.  Or.  34 ;  cf.  De  Isicl 
et  Os.  61) ;  dtcparo^;  (id.  De  An.  Ptog.  27) ;  u/ce- 
paio^  (Clemens  Romanus,  1  Ej^.  ad  Cor.  2) ;  and 
compare  Philo,  De  Oj>if.  Mim.  8 ;  Plutarch,  Adv. 
Col.  5  ;  De  Fac.  in  Orh.  16  :  irda-x^i'  to  [iL^vviievov  * 
aTTo/SdWet  yap  to  elXtfcpivifi :  in  like  manner  the 
Etym.  M. :  el\cKpLvr}<i  aTjiialvei  top  KaOapov  fcal 
dfiiyrj  erepov.  I  would  not  in  the  least  deny  that 
there  are  various  passages  in  which  the  notion  of 
clearness  is  the  predominant,  thus  for  example  in 
Philo  {Quis  Rer.  Div.  Hmr.  61)  elXiKpLvh  Trvp  is 
contrasted  with  the  Kkl^avo^  fcairvLl^ofMevof;,  but  they 
are  quite  the  rarer,  and  may  very  well  be  secondary 
and  superinduced. 

The  ethical  use  of  eiKiKpivrj^  and  eCktKpLveia  first 
appears  in  the  N.  T.,  being  altogether  strange  to 
classical  Greek;  Theophylact  defining  elXiKpLveia 
well  as  KadapLTT)^  ^iavoim  koI  dhokorr)^  ovBev  exov- 
<rac   o-vveaKiaa-/jiivov  koX   vttovKov  ;    and   Basil   the 


174:  SYITONYMS   OF  THE 

Great  {in  Reg.  Brev.  InU)  etXiKpcvh  elvau  Xoyl^o/jLai 
TO  afjbi'yh,  fcal  aKpo^^  KeKadap/xivov  airo  7ravTo<;  ivav- 
Tiov.  It  is  true  to  this  its  central  meaning  as  often 
as  it  is  employed  in  the  N.  T.  The  Corinthians 
shall  purge  out  the  old  leaven  that  they  may  keep 
the  feast  with  the  unleavened  bread  of  sincerity 
{6l\cKpiV€La<;)  and  truth  (1  Cor.  v.  8).  St.  Paul  re- 
joices that  in  simplicity  and  in  that  sincerity  which 
God  gives  (eV  elXcKpcveta  Qeov\  not  in  fleshly  wis- 
dom, he  has  his  conversation  in  the  world  (2  Cor.  i. 
12) ;  declares  that  he  is  not  of  those  who  tamper 
with  and  adulterate  {Ka7r7J\evovre<;)  the  word  of  God, 
but  that  as  of  sincerity  (e'f  elXcKpLveias;)  he  speaks  in 
Christ  (2  Cor.,.ii.  IT). 

KaOapo^  in  its  earliest  use  (Homer  does  not 
know  it  in  any  other,  Od.  vi.  61 ;  xvii.  48)  is  clean, 
and  this  in  a  non-ethical  sense,  as  oj^posed  to  pvira- 
po?.  Thus  KaOapov  awjia  (Xenophon,  (Ecoii.  x.  7)  is 
the  body  not  smeared  with  paint  or  ointment,  and 
in  this  sense  it  is  often  employed  in  the  IST.  T.  (Matt. 
xxvii.  59 ;  Ileb.  x.  22 ;  Rev.  xv.  6).  But  already 
in  the  tragic  poets  it  had  obtained  an  ethical  mean- 
ing, which  is  not  uncommon  in  the  Septuagint, 
where  it  often  designates  cleanness  of  heart  (Job 
viii.  6 ;  Ps.  xxiii.  4),  although  far  oftener  a  clean- 
ness merely  technical  and  ceremonial.  That  it  fre- 
quently runs  into  the  domain  of  meaning  which  it 
has  been  sought  to  claim  for  dXiKpivr]^  cannot  be 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  176 

denied.  It  also  is  found  associated  with  a^i^r]^ 
(Pliilo,  De  Mund,  Ojpif.  8),  with  aKpaTo^  (Xeno- 
phon,  Cyrop.  viii.  Y.  20 ;  Plutarch,  JEmil.  Paul. 
34),  with  aKTiparo^  (Plato,  Crat.  396  h) ;  KaOapo^ 
alro^  is  wheat  with  the  chaff  winnowed  away 
(Xenophon,  (Econ.  xviii.  8,  9) ;  KaOapo^  arparo^,  an 
army  rid  of  its  sick  and  ineffective  (Herodotus,  i. 
211 ;  cf  iv.  135),  or,  as  the  same  phrase  is  used  in 
Xenophon,  an  army  made  up  of  the  best  materials, 
not  lowered  by  an  admixtm-e  of  mercenaries  or 
cowards ;  the  flower  of  the  army,  all  dvBpe<;  dxpeloi 
being  set  aside  (Appian,  viii.  117).  And  yet,  not- 
withstanding all  such  associations  and  such  uses  of 
KaOapo^,  it  still  remains  true  that  the  purity  ex- 
pressed by  it  is  mainly  contemplated  under  the 
aspect  of  cleanness,  freedom  from  soil  or  stain ;  thus 
OpTjCTKeia  Kadapa  koX  a[iiavTo<;  (Jam.  i.  27),  and  the 
constant  use  of  the  phrase  Ka6apo<i  (f)6vov,  and  the 
like. 

It  may  then,  I  think,  be  said  in  conclusion,  that 
as  the  Christian  is  elXiKpivri<^y  this  grace  in  him 
will  exclude  all  double-mindedness,  the  divided 
heart  (Jam.  i.  8 ;  iv.  8),  the  eye  not  single  (Matt, 
vi.  22),  all  hypocrisies ;  while,  as  he  is  KaOapb^  ry 
/capBla,  by  this  are  excluded  the  fjudaixara  (2  Pet. 
ii.  20  ;  cf  Tit.  i.  18),  the  fjLoXvafio^  (2  Cor.  vii.  1), 
the  pvirapCa  (Jam.  i.  21 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  21 ;  Rev.  xxii. 
11)  of  sin.     In  the  one  will  be  predicated  his  free* 


176  6YN0NTMS   OF  THE 

dom  from  tlie  falsehoods,  in  the  other  from  the  de- 
Elements,  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  world.  If  absence 
of  foreign  admixture  belongs  to  both,  yet  is  it  a 
more  primary  sense  in  eiKLKpivrj^,  not  improbably 
wrapt  np  in  the  etymology  of  the  word,  a  more 
secondary  and  superinduced  in  Kadapo^. 


§  xxxvi. — TTokefjio^,  l^^X^' 

Tlokejio^  and  [J^dxv  occur  often  together  (Homer, 
11.  i.  177  ;  V.  891 ;  Plato,  Tim.  19  e ;  Job  xxxviii. 
23  ;  Jam.  v.  3) ;  and  in  like  manner  irokefxelv  and 
fidxeo-dac.  There  is  the  same  difference  between 
them  as  between  our  own  '  war '  and  '  battle ; '  6 
TToXejubo^  UeXoTrovvrja-iaKo^,  the  Peloponnesian  War  ; 
T)  iv  Mapadoivi  pLaxVy  the  battle  of  Marathon.  Deal- 
ing with  the  words  in  this  antithesis,  namely  tliat 
TToXefMo^  embraces  the  whole  course  of  hostilities 
/Jidxv  1^0  more  than  the  actual  encounter  in  arms  of 
hostile  forces,  Pericles,  dissuading  the  Athenians 
from  giving  way  to  the  demands  of  the  Spartans, 
admits  that  the  Peloponnesians  were  a  match  for 
all  the  other  Greeks  together  in  a  single  battle,  but 
refuses  to  allow  that  they  would  possess  the  same 
superiority  in  a  war,  at  least  against  such  as  had 
their  preparations  of  another  kind  {fidxy  p^^v  jap 


NEW    TESTA^IENT.  177 

fiia  7r/309  airavTa^  "EX\.7]va<;  Svvarol  IlekoTrovvijcrcoi, 
Kol  ol  ^v/j.fia')(^oi,  avTicT')(a,v,  iroXeiMelv  he  /jltj  tt/do? 
o/jLoiav  avTL7rapaa-Kev7]v  dSvvaroCy  Thiicydides,  i. 
141). 

But  besides  this,  while  irokejio^  and  irokeiielv 
remain  true  to  their  primary  meaning,  and  are  not 
transfeiTed  to  any  secondary,  it  is  altogether  other- 
wise with  /ia;^?7  and  fjLd')(ea6ac.  Contentions  which 
fall  very  short  of  the  shock  of  arms  are  continually 
designated  by  these  words.  There  are  /^a%at  of 
every  kind :  ipcorcKal  (Xenophon,  Jlierp,  i.  35) ; 
vofiLKai  (Tit.  iii.  9  ;  cf.  2  Tim.  ii.  23) ;  Xoyo/jiaxiai' 
(1  Tim.  vi.  4) ;  aKiafia')(^iac :  and  compare  John  vi. 
52;  2  Tit.  ii.  24;  Prov.  xxvi.  20,  21. 

Eustathius  (on  Homer,  11.  i.  177)  expresses  these 
differences  well :  to  TroXefiol  re  fid')(^ac  re,  rj  eK  ira- 
paXkrjkov  hrfKol  to  avTO,  t)  koX  hia^opd  Tt9  ecrrt  rat? 
Xe^ecTiv,  ecye  [id')(eTai  jiev  t^?  Kal  Xoyot'^,  co?  koX  tj 
\oyofia')(^ia  B7]\o2,  Kal  auro?  Be  6  7roc7}T7]<;  pueT  okCya 
(prjcTL,  /jLax€(TG-afievco  eireeao-L  (ver.  304).  koX  dXXco? 
he  pidxn  fiev,  avTTj  rj  tcov  dvBpcjv  avveio-^oXrj '  6  Be 
ir6\epL0<;  koX  errl  irapaTd^ecov  koX  piaylp.ov  Kaipov 
XeyeTac.  Tittmann  {De  Synon.  in  iT.  T.  p.  ^^) : 
^  Conveninnt  igitur  in  eo  quod  dimicationem,  con- 
tentionem,  pngnam  denotant,  sed  iroXepLo^  et  iroXe- 
fieiv  de  pngna  quae  manibus  fit  proprie  dicnntnr, 
fj'dxn  autem  et  fidxea-Oac  de  quacunqne  contentione, 
etiam  animoram,  etiamsi  non  ad  verbera  et  csedes 
8* 


178  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

pervenerit.  In  illis  igitur  ipsa  pugna  cogitatur, 
in  liis  snfficit  cogitare  de  contentione,  qnam  pugna 
plernmque  sequitur.' 


§  xxxvii. — irddo^y  eTnOvfJiia,  6p/jbi],  ope^a. 

Uddo^i  occurs  three  times  in  tlie  N.  T.,  once  co- 
ordinated with  eTTcOv/jLLa  (Col.  iii.  5  ;  for  iradrjixara 
and  einOvfilaL  in  like  manner  joined  together  see 
Gal.  V.  24) ;  once  with  einOviJLia  subordinated  to  it 
{ird6o<;  i'TTiOv/jiia^,  1  Thess.  iv.  6);  the  only  other 
occasion  of  its  use  being  at  Eom.  i.  26,  where  the 
Trddr)  drifjiLa^  ("vile  aftections,"  E.  Y.)  are  lusts 
that  dishonour  those  who  indulge  in  them. 

The  word  belongs  to  the  terminology  of  the 
Greek  schools  of  ethical  philosophy.  Thus  Cicero 
{TusG.  QucBst.  iv.  5) :  '  Quse  Grasci  irddi]  vocant, 
nobis  perturbationes  appellari  magis  placet  quam 
morbos  / '  on  this  preference  see  iii.  10  ;  and  pres- 
ently after  he  adopts  Zeno's  definition,  '  aversa  a 
recta  ratione,  contra  naturam,  animi  commotio ; ' 
and  elsewhere  {Offio.  ii.  5),  '  motus  animi  turbatus.' 
The  exact  definition  of  Zeno,  as  given  by  Diogenes 
Laertius,  is  as  follows  (vii.  1.  63) :  ean  Be  avro  to 
7rd6o<;  7)  aXoyo^  koX  nrapa  ^vatv  'yjrvxv^  klvtjo-c;,  rj 
opfirj  Trkeovd^ovaa,      Clement  of   Alexandria  has 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  179 

this  in  his  mind  when,  distinguishing  between  opfiri 
and  irdOo^y  he  w^rites  thus  {Strom,  ii.  13) :  opixr]  jiev 
ovv  <f)opa  hiavoia^  eirL  re  rj  airo  rov  7rd6o<;  Be, 
ifkeovd^ovcra  opfiij,  rj  virepTeCvovaa  ra  Kara  rov  Xo- 
701/  /jbirpa  '  rj  op/xr]  ifC(j>6po/jL€V7j,  kol  direiOr]^  \6ya). 

At  the  same  time  ttuOo^  in  the  !N".  T.  nowhere 
obtains  that  wide  sense  which  it  thus  obtained  in 
the  Greek  schools ;  a  sense  so  much  wider  than  that 
ascribed  to  iTrcdvfila,  that  this  last  was  only  re- 
garded as  one  of  the  several  TrdOrj  of  our  nature 
(Diogenes  Laertius,  vii.  1.  67).  So  far  from  this, 
iTTcOv/jLLa  in  Scripture  is  the  larger  word,  including 
the  whole  world  of  active  lusts  and  desires,  all  to 
which  the  Ovfio^,  as  the  seat  of  desire  and  the  natu- 
ral appetites,  impels ;  while  the  7rd6o^  is  rather  the 
*  morosa  delectatio,'  not  so  much  the  soul's  disease 
in  its  more  active  operations,  as  the  diseased  condi- 
tion out  of  which  these  spring,  the  '  morbus  libidi- 
nis,'  as  Bengel  has  put  it  well,  rather  than  the 
'libido,'  the  '  lustfulness '  as  distinguished  from  the 
'  lust ; '  cf.  Rom.  vii.  6  :  ra  iraOrjiiara  rcov  dfjuap- 
TiMV.  Theophylact :  7rd6o<;  r)  \vaaa  rov  o-cwynaros", 
KOL  coairep  irvpero^,  rj  Tpav^ia,  rj  oKKrj  v6(to^. 

^ETrcdvfjLia,  or  rov  ^8eo9  opeft?,  as  Aristotle 
(Bhet.  i.  10),  d\oyo<;  6p€^i,<i  as  the  Stoics,  4mmo- 
derata  appetitio  opinat  magni  boni,  ration!  non  ob- 
temperans '  as  Cicero  {Tusc.  Qucest.  iii.  11)  defined 
it,  is  rendered  for  the  most  part  in  our  translation 


180  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

'  lust'  (Mark  iv.  19,  and  often),  but  sometimes  ^con^ 
cupiscence'  (Eom.  vii.  8;  Col.  iii.  5),  and  some- 
times '  desire '  (Luke  xxii.  15  ;  Pliil.  i.  23).  It 
appears  now  and  then,  though  rarely,  in  the  N.  T. 
in  a  good  sense  (Luke  xxii.  15  ;  Phil.  i.  23  ;  1  Tliess. 
ii.  17;  cf.  Prov.  x.  24;  Ps.  ciL  5),  much  oftener, 
however,  in  a  bad  ;  not  as  '  concupiscentia '  merely, 
but  as  ^prava  concupiscentia,'  which  Origen  {in 
Joan.  torn.  10)  afhrms  is  the  only  sense  in  which 
it  was  employed  in  the  Greek  Schools;  (but  see 
Aristotle,  Rliet.  i.  11) ;  thus  iiriOvfiia  KaKrj  (Cob 
iii.  5) ;  iinOvfiiaL  aapKiKaC  (1  Pet.  ii.  11)  ;  j/ewre- 
pLKai  (2  Tim.  ii.  22)  ;  avoriroL  kol  jSXa^epal  (1  Tim. 
vi.  9) ;  KoafjLLKai  (Tit.  ii.  12) ;  t?)?  aTrdrT]^  (Eph. 
iv.  22) ;  (j)dopd<;  (2  Pet.  i.  4) ;  fiiaafiov  (2  Pet.  ii. 
20) ;  dvdpcoTTcov  (1  Pet.  ii.  2) ;  t?}?  aapKo^;  (1  John 
ii.  16) ;  and  without  a  qualifying  epithet  (Rom.  vii. 
7;  Jude  16,  18;  Gen.  xlix.  6;  Ps.  cv.  14).  It  is 
then,  as  Yitringa  defines  it,  ^vitiosa  ilia  voluntatis 
affectio,  qua  fertur  ad  appetendum  quae  illicite 
usurpantur ;  aut  quae  licite  usurpantur,  appetit 
ara/cTO)? ; '  this  same  evil  sense  being  ascribed  to 
it  in  such  definitions  as  that  of  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria (Strom,  ii.  20),  €J>€ai^  koX  ope^L^  dXoyo<;  rod 
Kexapicfjiivov  avrfj.  Our  English  word  '  lust,'  once 
harmless  enough,  has  had  very  much  the  same  his- 
tory. For  a  long  discussion  seeking  to  trace  why 
it  should  be  constantly  employed  in  malam  partem, 


NEW   TESTA]^IENT.  181 

see  Yitringa,  De  Concupiscentid  Yitiosd  et  Damna- 
lili,  Ohss.  Sac.  p.  598,  sqq.  The  relation  in  wliicli 
it  stands  to  ttclOo';  it  has  been  already  sought  to 
trace. 

'Opfjurj,  occurring  twice  in  the  N.  T.  (Acts  xiv.  5  ; 
Jam.  iii.  4),  and  ope^t?  occurring  once  (Kom.  i.  27), 
are  often  found  together ;  thus  in  Plutarch  {De 
Meet.  Rat.  Aud.  18,  on  which  see  "Wyttenbach's 
note) ;  in  Eusebius  {PrcBjp.  Evang.  xiv.  Y65  d).  Of 
op^iriy  '  appetitio,'  as  Cicero  {Of.  ii.  5)  renders  it, 
and  again  as  '  appetitus  animi '  {De  Fin.  y.  Y),  we 
have  the  Stoic  definition  in  Plutarch  {De  Rejp. 
Stoic.  11),  7]  opfiT)  rod  avdpcoTTOv  X0709  earl  irpoa- 
TaKTLKo^  avTcp  Tov  TTOLGiv.  The  Stoics  cxplalu  it 
further  as  this  '  motus  animi,'  which,  if  toward  a 
thing  is  op€^c<;,  if  from  it  eKK\L(Tt<;.  "When  our 
Translators  at  Acts  xiv.  5  render  op/j^T]  '  assault,' 
they  ascribe  to  the  word  more  than  it  there  con- 
tains. Manifestly  there  was  no  '  assault '  actually 
made  on  the  house  where  Paul  and  Barnabas  abode ; 
for  in  such  a  case  it  would  have  been  very  super- 
fluous for  St.  Luke  to  tell  us  that  they  "  were  ware" 
of  it.  It  was  not  an  assault,  but  a  purpose  and 
intention  of  assault :  '  Trieb,'  '  Drang,'  as  Meyer 
gives  it.  And  in  the  same  way  at  Jam.  iii.  4,  the 
opfjLTJ  of  the  pilot  is  not  the  '  impetus  brachiorum,' 
but  the  ^studium  et  conatus  voluntatis.'  Compare 
for  this  use  of  opfxij,  Sophocles,  Philoct.  237 ;    Plu- 


182  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

tarcli,  De  Red.  Rat.  And.  1 ;  Prov.  iii.  25 ;  and 
tlie  many  passages  in  which  it  is  joined  with  irpo- 
atpeau^  (Josephus,  Antt.  xix.  6.  3). 

But  while  the  opixrj  is  thus  oftentimes  the  hostile 
motion  and  spring  toward  an  object,  with  a  purpose 
of  propelling  and  repelling  it  still  further  from  it- 
self, as  for  example  the  opjjiri  of  the  spear,  of  the 
assaulting  host,  the  bpe^i^  (from  6piyea6ac)  is  ever 
and  always  the  reaching  out  after  and  toward  an 
object,  with  a  purpose  of  drawing  that  after  which 
it  reaches  to  itself,  and  making  it  its  own.  Yerj 
commonly  the  word  is  used  to  express  the  appetite 
for  food  (Plutarch,  J)e  Frat.  Am.  2 ;  Symjp.  vi.  2. 
1) ;  in  the  Definitions  of  Plato  (414  Z>)  philosophy 
is  described  as  r?}?  tmv  ovtcov  del  i7rL(TT7]fjLr]<;  ope^i^. 
After  what  vile  enjoyments  the  heathen,  as  judged 
by  St.  Paul,  are  regarded  as  reaching  out,  is  suf- 
ficiently manifest  from  the  context  of  the  one  pas- 
sage in  the  iN".  T.  where  the  word  occurs  (Rom.  i. 
27;  cf.  Plutarch,  Qurnt.  Nat.  21). 


§  xxxviii. — fV/3o§,  ocno<;,  ayco^;,  wyvo^;, 

'lepo^  never  in  the  N".  T.,  and  very  seldom  any- 
where else,  expresses  moral  qualities.  It  is  singu- 
lar how  seldom  the  word  occurs  there,  indeed  only 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  183 

twice  (1  Cor.  ix.  13 ;  2  Tim.  iii.  15) ;  and,  except  in 
tlie  Book  of  Maccabees,  only  once  in  the  Septiiagint 
(Josh.  vi.  8) ;  being  in  none  of  these  cases  employ- 
ed of  persons,  who  alone  are  moral  agents,  bnt  only 
of  things.  To  persons  the  word  is  of  rarest  applica- 
tion, as  for  instance  when  in  Plutarch  the  Indian 
gymnosophists  are  aVS/oe?  lepoi,  koI  avrovofiot,  {De 
Alex.  Fort.  i.  10).  *l€po<;  (to3  6ew  avaTeOeiixevo^y 
Suidas)  answers  very  closely  to  the  Latin  '  sacer ' 
{'  qnidquid  destinatum  est  diis  sacrum  vocatur '),  to 
onr  '  sacred ' ;  being  that  to  which  a  certain  inviola- 
bility is  attached,  thns  tepo?  koX  dcrvXos  X6yo<;  in 
Plutarch  {JDe  Gen.  Soc.  2i),  this  inviolable  character 
being  derived  from  its  relations  nearer  or  remoter 
to  God  ;  6elo<;  and  lepo^  being  often  joined  together, 
as  by  Plato,  Tim.  45  a.  Tittmann :  '  In  voce  fVpo? 
j)roprie  nihil  aliud  cogitatur,  quam  quod  res  quo3- 
dam  aut  persona  Deo  sacra  sit,  nulla  ingenii  mo- 
rumque  ratione  habita  ;  imprimis  quod  sacris  inser- 
vit.'  Thus  the  iepev^  is  a  sacred  person,  as  serving 
at  God's  altar,  the  word  not  in  the  least  implying 
that  he  is  a  holy  one  as  well ;  he  may  be  a  Hophni, 
a  Caiaphas,  an  Alexander  Borgia.  The  true  anti- 
thesis to  ie/309  is  ^ep7}\o<^,  and,  though  not  so  per- 
fectly antithetic,  fjLiap6<;  (2  Mace.  v.  19). 

^'0(TLo<^  is  oftener  grouped  witli  hUaLo^  for  pur- 
poses  of  discrimination,  than  with  the  words  here 
associated  with  it ;  and  undoubtedly  they  are  fre- 


184  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

quently  found  together  ;  thus  m  Plato  often  {Thecet 
176  h ;  Bej?.  x.  615  I),  in  Josephus  {Antt.  viii.  9.  1), 
and  m  the  IST.  T.  (Tit.  i.  8) ;  and  so  also  the  deriva- 
tives from  these  ;  oo-loi^  and  BifcaLco^  (1  Thess.  ii. 
10) ;  6<n6T7]<;  and  BcKaLocrvvT]  (Plato,  Prot.  329  c ; 
Luke  i.  75 ;  Ephes.  iv.  21 ;  Wisd.  ix.  3 ;  Clemens 
Eomanus,  1  Cor.  48).  The  distinction  too  is  often 
urged  that  the  oaio^  is  one  careful  of  his  duties  to- 
ward God,  the  Biicaio^  toward  men  ;  and  in  classical 
Greek  no  doubt  we  meet  with  many  passages  in 
which  such  a  distinction  is  either  openly  asserted 
or  implicitly  involved ;  as,  for  example,  in  an  often 
quoted  passage  from  Plato  {Gorg.  507  I) :  koX  fir^v 
Trepl  TOv<;  av6pco7rov<;  ra  Trpoa'^KOvra  Trpdrrcov,  Sl/cat 
av  TrpdrroL,  Trepl  8e  Oeov^  oaia.^  Of  Socrates,  Mar- 
cus Antoninus  says  (vii.  6Q),  that  he  was  dUaio^  ra 
7rpo<i  dv6p(07rov<;,  oaio^i  ra  irpo^  6eov^ :  cf.  Plutarch, 
Demet.  24 ;  Charito,  i.  10.  4 ;  and  see  a  large  col- 
lection of  passages  in  Post  and  Palm's  Lexicon^  s.  v. 
There  is  nothing  however  which  warrants  the  trans- 
fer of  this  distinction  to  the  ^N".  T.,  nothing  which 

^  Not  altogether  so  in  the  Euthyphro^  where  he  regards  rb  St/cotov, 
or  diKaioffvvr],  as  the  6um  total  of  all  virtue,  of  which  b<n6T-ns  or  piety 
is  a  part.  In  this  Dialogue,  which  is  throughout  a  discussion  on  the 
offiovy  Plato  makes  Euthyphro  to  say  (12  e):  toDto  rolvuf  ffioiye 
5oKe7,  S}  "ZdiKpares,  rh  ixepos  rod  SiKalov  fluai  fvcrefies  re  Koi  ocriov,  rh 
irepl  t)]v  twv  Beuiv  depanelav  '  rh  Se  Trepl  r}]u  ruv  ikvOpuTTuv  rh  \onrbv 
eivai  rou  diKaiov  fJ.epos,  which  Socrates  admits  and  allows ;  indeed, 
has  himself  forced  him  into  it. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  185 

would  restrict  the  application  of  hUaio^  to  him  who 
should  fulfil  accurately  the  precepts  of  the  second 
table  (thus  see  Luke  i.  6  ;  Eom.  i.  IT ;  1  Joh.  ii.  1) ; 
or  the  application  of  oaio^  to  him  who  should  fulfil 
the  demands  of  the  first  (thus  see  Acts  ii.  27  ;  Heb. 
vii.  26).  N^or  was  it  beforehand  probable  that  such, 
distinction  should  there  find  place.  In  fact  the 
Scripture,  wliicli  recognizes  all  rigbteonsness  as 
one,  as  growing  ont  of  a  single  root,  and  obedient 
to  a  single  law,  gives  no  room  for  sucli  an  anti- 
thesis as  this.  He  who  loves  liis  brother,  and  ful- 
fils his  duties  towards  him,  loves  him  in  God  and 
for  God.  The  second  great  commandment  is  not 
coordinated  with  the  first  greatest,  but  subordinated 
to,  and  in  fact  included  in  it  (Mark  xii.  30,  81). 

If  te/)09  is  'sacer,'  ocrto?  is  ^sanctus  '  (=  *sanci- 
tus '),  as  opposed  to  '  pollutns.'  Some  of  the  ancient 
grammarians  derive  it  from  a^eaOai,  the  Homeric 
synonym  for  ae/SeaOat,  rightly  as  regards  sense, 
but  wrongly  as  regards  etymology.  In  classical 
Greek  it  is  much  more  frequently  used  of  things 
than  of  j)ersons ;  oala,  with  ^ovkrj  or  hUr]  under- 
stood, expressing  the  everlasting  ordinances  of 
right,  which  no  law  or  custom  of  men  has  consti- 
tuted, for  they  are  anterior  to  all  law  and  custom, 
and  rest  on  the  divine  constitution  of  the  moral 
universe  and  man's  relation  to  this.  The  oato^,  the 
German  *  fromm,'  is  one  who  reverences  these  ever- 


186  STNONTMS   OF  THE 

lasting  sanctities,  and  owns  their  obligation ;  the 
word  being  joined  with  evopKo<^  by  Plato  {Pol. 
293  d\  with  Oelo^  by  Plutarch  {De  Def.  Orat.  40), 
more  than  once  set  over  against  eiriopKo<i  by  Xeno- 
phon.  Those  things  are  avoala,  which  violate  these 
everlasting  ordinances ;  for  instance,  a  Greek  would 
regard  the  Egyptian  cnstom  of  marriage  between  a 
brother  and  sister,  still  more  the  Persian  between 
a  mother  and  son,  as  '  incestum '  (in-castnm),  [xrj^a- 
fjbS)^  ocna,  as  Plato  {Legg.  viii.  858  V)  has  it,  unions 
which  no  human  laws  conld  ever  render  other  than 
abominable.  Snch,  too,  would  be  the  omission  of 
burial  rites,  when  it  was  possible  to  pay  them ;  if 
Antigone,  for  instance,  in  obedience  to  Croon's 
edict,  had  suffered  the  body  of  her  brother  to  re- 
main unburied  (Sophocles,  Antig.  74).  What  is 
the  oaiov,  and  what  are  the  obligations  of  it,  has 
never  been  more  nobly  declared  than  in  the  words 
which  the  poet  puts  into  her  mouth  : 

ou5e  crOeveiu  roaovrou  (f6fxr]V  to  go. 

Kripvyfiad\  war   'aypaTrra  KacrcpaXyj  6ea>v 

v6ixifia  SvvaaBai  Qvqrhv  ov&  virep^pajx^lv  (453 — 455). 

This  character  of  the  oaiov  as  something  anterior 
and  superior  to  all  human  enactments,  puts  the 
same  antithesis  between  ocna  and  vofjui^a  as  exist 
between  the  Latin  *  fas  '  and  ^  jus.' 

When  we  follow  00-^09  to  its  uses  in  sacred 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  187 

Greek,  we  of  course  find  that  it  gains  in  depth  and 
intensity  of  meaning;  but  otherwise  it  is  true  to 
the  sense  which  it  already  had  in  the  classical  lan- 
guage. We  have  a  very  striking  testimony  for  the 
distinction  which,  in  the  minds  of  the  Septuagint 
translators  at  least,  existed  between  it  and  a<yio^,  in 
the  very  noticeable  fact,  that  while  ocno^  is  used 
some  thirty  times  as  the  rendering  of  'i^an  (Deut. 
xxxiii.  8  ;  2  Sam.  xxii.  26 ;  Ps.  iv.  4),  and  a<yLo^ 
nearly  a  hundred  times  as  the  rendering  of  ^ii)? 
(Exod.  xix.  6 ;  ISTum.  vi.  5  ;  Ps.  xv.  3),  in  no  single 
instance  is  6(tCo<;  used  for  the  latter,  or  ayuo^  for  the 
former  of  these  words;  and  the  same  law  holds 
good,  I  believe,  universally  in  the  conjugates  of 
these ;  and,  which  is  perhaps  more  remarkable  still, 
of  the  other  Greek  words  which  are  rarely  and  ex- 
ceptionally employed  to  render  these  two,  none  which 
is  used  for  the  one  is  ever  used  for  the  other ;  thus 
KaOapo^,  used  for  the  second  of  these  Hebrew  words 
(Is'um.  V.  17),  is  never  employed  for  the  first ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  e\erjfi(ov  (Jer.  iii.  12),  iroXviXeo^ 
(Exod.  xxxiv.  6),  evXa^rj^  (Mic.  vii.  2),  used  for  the 
former,  are  in  no  single  instance  employed  for  the 
latter. 

"A^Lo^  and  a<yv6<^  may  very  probably  be  difierent 
forms  of  one  and  the  same  word.  At  all  events, 
they  have  in  common  that  root  ^AT,  reappearing  as 
the  Latin  '  sac '  in  '  sacer,'  '  sancio,'  and  many  other 


188  SYNONY^IS   OF   THE 

words.  It  will  tlins  be  only  natural  that  they 
should  have  much  in  common,  even  while  yet  they 
separate  off,  and  occnpy  provinces  of  meaning  which 
are  clearly  distinguishable  one  from  the  other. 

The  fundamental  idea  of  a7i09  is  separation,  and, 
so  to  speak,  consecration  and  devotion  to  the  ser- 
vice of  Deity  ;  it  ever  lying  in  the  word,  as  in  the 
Latin  'sacer,'  that  this  consecration  may  be  as 
avdOrj/xa  or  dvaOe/bia  (note  in  this  point  of  view  its 
connexion  with  dy/]<;,  dyo<;).  But  the  thought  lies 
very  near,  that  what  is  set  apart  from  the  Wjorld 
and  to  God  J  should  separate  itself  from  the  w^orld's 
defilements,  and  should  share  in  God's  purity ;  and 
in  this  way  dyi,o<;  speedily  acquires  a  moral  signifi- 
cance. The  Jews  must  be  an  66vo<;  djLov,  not  mere- 
ly in  the  sense  of  being  God's  inheritance,  but  as 
separating  themselves  from  the  abominations  of  the 
nations  round ;  God  Himself,  as  the  absolutely  se- 
parate from  evil,  and  as/  repelling  from  Himself 
every  possibility  of  stain  or  defilement,  having  this 

i  title  of  dyLo^  by  highest  right  of  all  (Lev.  x.  13 ; 

*  Eev.  iii.  7). 

It  is  somewhat  different  with  dyvo^,  'Ayvela 
(1  Tim.  iv.  12 ;  v.  2),  in  the  Definitions  which  go 
by  Plato's  name  too  vaguely  exj^lained  (414  a) 
evXd/Seca  to)v  irpo^  tov^  6eov<;  dfiaprrj/judrcov  '  t?}?  deov 
Tifii)^  Kara  <f)vatv  Oepairela :  too  vaguely  also  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria  as  tmv  dfiaprrjfidTcov  d'Tro')(ri, 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  189 

or  again  as  (j)povelv  oata  (Slrom,  v.  l);'is  better 
defined  as  e7riTacn<;  a(o^poavvrj<i  by  Suidas,  iXevOepia 
nrdvTO^  fiokvafjiov  aapKo<;  koL  irvevfiaro';  by  Phavori- 
rnis.  'Ayvo';  (joined  with  d/jLlavro^,  Clemens  Ro- 
manns,  1  Cor.  29)  is  the  pure ;  sometimes  only  the 
externally  or  ceremonially  pnre,  as  in  this  line  of 
Euripides,  071/09  yap  elfjui  ')(elpa<i,  dXX  ov  ra?  (j)piva<; 
{Orestes,  1604)  ;  compare  IIi2?polytiis,  310,  317,  and 
the  use  of  dyvl^etv  as  '  expiare,'  Sophocles,  AJax, 
640 ;  which  last  word  in  the  Septuagint  never  rises 
higher  than  to  signify  a  ceremonial  purification 
(Josh.  iii.  5  ;  2  Chron.  xxix.  6  ;  2  Mace.  i.  33),  in- 
deed in  four  out  of  the  seven  occasions  on  which  it 
occurs  in  the  N".  T.  it  has  the  same  lower  significa- 
tion (John  xi.  55  ;  Acts  xxi.  24,  26  ;  xxiv.  18  ;  and 
compare  dyvi<7iJbo<;,  Acts  xxi.  26).  'Ayvo^;  however 
signifies  often  the  pure  in  the  highest  sense.  It  is 
an  epithet  frequently  applied  to  heathen  gods  and 
goddesses,  to  Ceres,  to  Proserpine,  to  Jove  (Sopho- 
cles, Philoct.  1273  ;  Pindar,  Olymjp.  vii.  60 ;  and 
Dissen's,  note),  and  to  God  Himself  (1  John  iii.  3). 
For  these  nobler  uses  of  071/09  in  the  Septuagint, 
where  the  word  however  is  excessively  rare  as  com- 
pared to  07^09,  see  Ps.  xi.  7 ;  Prov.  xx.  9.  As 
there  is  no  such  imj)urity  as  fornication,  being  as  it 
is  defilement  of  the  body  and  the  spirit  alike  (1  Cor. 
vi.  18,  19)  so  071^09  is  an  epithet  predominantly  em- 
ployed to  express  freedom  from  all  impurity  of  this 


190  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

nature  (Plutarch,  Prce.  Gonj.  44 ;  Qumst.  Rcmi.  20 ; 
cf.  Tit.  ii.  5) ;  while  sometimes  in  a  still  more  re- 
stricted sense  it  expresses  not  chastity  merely,  but 
virginity;  thus  aKrjparo^  lyd/jLcov  re  dyv6<;  (Plato, 
Zegg.  viii.  840  e),  and  for  the  same  use  of  dyvela  see 
Ignatius,  ad  Polyc.  5. 

If  what  has  been  said  is  correct,  Joseph,  when  he 
was  tempted  to  sin  by  his  Egyptian  mistress  (Gen. 
xxxix.  7 — 12),  approved  himself  oaio<^,  in  reveren- 
cing those  everlasting  sanctities  of  the  marriage 
bond,  which  God  had  founded,  and  which  he  could 
not  violate  without  sinning  against  God;  "How 
can  I  do  this  great  wickedness  and  sin  against 
God  ?  "  dyio^  in  that  he  separated  himself  from  any 
unholy  fellowship  with  his  temptress,  and  dyv6<i  in 
that  he  kept  his  body  pure,  and  chaste,  and  unde- 
filed. 


§  xxxix. — ^covi],  X6709. 

On  these  words,  and  on  their  relation  to  an- 
other, very  much  has  been  written  by  the  Greek 
grammarians  and  natural  philosophers  (see  Lersch, 
JSprac/i^hilosqphie  der  Alien,  part  iii.  pp.  35,  45, 
and  passim). 

^(ov7],  from  (j)d(o,  (09  (j)coTL^ovaa  to  voovfJLevov 
(Plutarch,  De  Plac.  PJiil.   19),   rendered  in  our 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  191 

Yersion  ^  voice  '  (Matt.  ii.  8),  ^  sound '  (John  iii.  8), 
'  noise '  (Rev.  vi.  1),  is  distinguished  from  -v/roc^o?, 
in  that  it  is  the  crj  of  a  living  creature  (77  Se  <^aivy] 
'sjr6(j)0(i  rh  iariv  eii^^v^ov,  Aristotle),  being  some- 
times ascribed  to  God  (Matt.  iii.  lY),  to  men  (Matt, 
iii.  3),  to  animals  (Matt.  xxvi.  34),  and,  though  im- 
properly, to  inanimate  objects  as  well  (1  Cor.  xiv. 
7),  as  to  the  trumpet  (Matt.  xxiv.  31),  the  wind 
(John  iii.  8),  the  thunder  (Eev.  vi.  1).  But  X0709, 
a  word,  saying,  or  rational  utterance  of  the  vov^y 
whether  spoken  {irpo^opiKO'^y  and  thus  <f>(ovr]  rwv 
\6ycov,  Dan.  vii.  11)  or  unspoken  (ivScdOero^),  be- 
ing, as  it  is,  the  correlative  of  reason,  can  only  be 
predicated  of  men  (\670u  Koivcovet  fiovov  av6pco7ro<;y 
TO,  Be  dWa  ^covrj^y  Aristotle,  Probl.  ii.  55),  of  angels, 
or  of  God.  The  (jxDvrj  may  be  a  mere  inarticulate 
cry,  and  this  whether  proceeding  from  man  or  from 
any  other  animal ;  and  therefore  the  Stoics'  defini- 
tion (Diogenes  Laertius,  vii.  §  55)  is  unsound  :  Jwov 
yuev  iarc  (fi(ovr]  drjp  vtto  oppLr)^  7re7r\7]yfjLevo<;,  dvOpcoTTOv 
Be  icTTiv  evapOpo^  koI  diro  Biavoia<i  iKirepnToixkvT), 
They  transfer  here  to  the  ^(hvt]  what  can  only  be 
constantly  affirmed  of  the  X0709 ;  indeed,  whenever 
it  sought  to  set  the  two  in  sharp  antithesis  with 
another,  this,  that  the  (^(avr]  is  a  irvevixa  dBcdpOpco- 
Tovy  is  the  point  particularly  made.  It  is  otherwise 
with  the  X0709,  of  which  the  Stoics  themselves  say, 
X0709  del  arjfjLavTCKOfi  eart  (§  57),  and  of  the  XeyeLv 


192  BTKONYMS   OF   THE 

that  it  is  TO  rrjv  voov/jbivov  Trpdy/jLaro^  o-TjfiavriKrjv 
irpo^epeoOai  ^(ovrjv.  Compare  Plutarch  [De  Anim. 
JPtoc,  27) :  (^wvtj  ti<;  icrrlv  aXoyo^  koI  dcr'}]fiavTO<^y 
\6yo'^  Be  \efi9  ev  cjicovf}  aTjixavTCKfj  Bi,avoia<;.  In  his 
treatise  De  Genio  Socratis,  there  is  much  on  the 
relation  of  ^(ovr)  and  Xoyo^;  to  one  another,  and  on 
the  higher  functions  of  the  latter.  Such  he  affirms 
the  Demon  of  Socrates  to  have  been  {e  20) :  ro  Be 
irpoa'TriTrrov,  ov  ^doyyov,  dXKa  Xoyov  dv  tl<;  elKdo-ete 
BalfjLOVo^,  dvev  ^covrj<;  icpaTTTO/Jbevov  avrS  t&)  BtjXov- 
fiivM  Tov  voovvTO^;.  UXrjyf}  yap  rj  (fxovr}  irpoaeoiKe 
T7](;  '^v')(f]<;,  Be  MTCov  ^la  tov  \6yov  elaBe')(oixev7]^,  orav 
dXkrfkoL^  evTvy)(^dvcofJL€v.  'O  Be  tov  KpeiTTOVO'^  vov^ 
dyei  T7]V  ev(j)vd  '^]rv')(7]v,  einOiyydvwv  tm  vorjOevri,, 
'7r\r}yf]<;  jjlyj  Beofxivrjv,  The  "svhole  chapter  is  one  of 
deepest  theological  interest ;  the  more  so  seeing 
that  the  great  theologians  of  the  earlj  Church, 
above  all  Origen  in  the  Greek  {in  Joan.  torn.  ii. 
§  26),  and  Augustine  in  the  Latin,  were  very  fond 
of  transferring  this  antithesis  of  the  ^wvr]  and  the 
X0709  to  John  the  Baptist  and  his  Lord,  the  first 
claiming  for  himself  no  more  than  to  be  "  the  voice 
of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness"  (John  i.  23),  the 
other  emphatically  declared  to  be  the  Word  that 
was  with  God,  and  was  God  (John  i.  1).  In  draw- 
ing out  the  relations  between  John  and  his  Lord  as 
expressed  by  these  titles,  the  Voice  and  the  Word, 
*  Yox '  and  *  Yerbum,'  ^(nvr)  and  X070?,  Angustino 


KEW   TESTAMENT.  193 

traces  with  a  singular  subtlety  the  manifold  and 
profound  fitnesses  which  lie  in  them  for  the  setting 
forth  of  those  relations.  A  word,  he  observes,  is 
something  even  without  a  voice,  for  a  word  in  the 
heart  is  as  truly  a  word  as  after  it  is  outspoken ; 
while  a  voice  is  nothing,  a  mere  unmeaning  sound, 
an  empty  cry,  unless  it  be  also  the  vehicle  of  a 
word.  But  when  they  are  thus  united,  the  voice  in 
a  manner  goes  before  the  word,  for  the  sound  strikes 
the  ear  before  the  sense  is  conveyed  to  the  mind : 
yet  while  it  thus  goes  before  it  in  this  act  of  com- 
munication, it  is  not  really  before  it,  but  the  con- 
trary. Thus,  when  we  speak,  the  word  in  our 
hearts  must  precede  the  voice  on  our  lips,  which 
voice  is  yet  the  vehicle  by  which  the  word  in  us  is 
transferred  to  and  becomes  also  a  word  in  another ; 
but  this  being  accomplished,  or  rather  in  the  very 
accomplishment  of  this,  the  voice  has  passed  away, 
exists  no  more ;  but  the  word  which  is  planted  now 
in  the  other's  heart,  as  well  as  in  ours,  remains.  All 
this  Augustine  transfers  to  the  Lord  and  to  his  fore- 
runner. John  is  nothing  without  Jesus :  Jesus  just 
what  he  was  before  without  John ;  however  to  men 
the  knowledge  of  Him  may  have  come  through 
John.  John  the  first  in  time,  and  yet  He  who 
came  after,  most  truly  having  'been  before,  him. 
John,  so  soon  as  he  had  accomplished  his  mission, 
passing  away,  ceasing,  having  no  continuous  signi- 
9 


194:  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

ficance  for  tiie  Church  of  God ;  but  Jesus,  of  whom 
he  had  told,  and  to  whom  he  witnessed,  abiding  for 
ever.  {Serm.  293.  §  3) :  '  Johannes  vox  ad  tempus^ 
Christus  verbum  in  principio  seternum.  Tolle  ver- 
bum,  quid  est  vox?  Ubi  nuUus  est  intellectus, 
inanis  est  strep itus.  Yox  sine  verbo  aurem  pulsat, 
cor  non  sedificat.  Yerumtamen  in  ipso  corde  nos- 
tro  sedificando  advertamus  ordinem  rerum.  Si 
cogito  quid  dicam,  jam  verbum  est  in  corde  meo: 
sed  loqui  ad  te  volens,  qusero  quemadmodum  sit 
etiam  in  corde  tuo,  quod  jam  est  in  meo.  Hoc 
quserens  quomodo  ad  te  perveniat,  et  in  corde  tuo 
insideat  verbum  quod  jam  est  in  corde  meo,  assumo 
vocem,  et  assumta  voce  loquor  tibi :  sonus  vocis 
ducit  ad  te  intellectum  verbi,  et  cum  ad  te  duxit 
sonus  vocis  intellectum  verbi,  sonus  quidem  ipse 
pertransit,  verbum  autem  quod  ad  te  sonus  per- 
duxit,  jam  est  in  corde  tuo,  nee  recessit  a  meo.' 
Cf.  Serm.  288.  §  3  ;  289.  §  3. 


§  xl. — \6^o<;i  fJbvOo^. 

A6yo(;  is  quite  as  often  '  sermo '  as  '  verbum,'  a 
connected  discourse  as  a  single  word.  Indeed,  as 
is  familiar  to  many,  there  was  once  no  little  dis- 
cussion whether  -^070?  in  its  very  highest  applica- 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  196 

tion  of  all  (John  i.  1)  should  not  rather  be  rendered 
by  the  former  word  than  by  the  latter.  And,  not 
to  dwell  on  this  exceptional  and  purely  theological 
employment  of  X070?,  it  is  frequently  in  the  E".  T. 
used  to  express  that  word  which  by  supereminent 
right  deserves  the  name,  being,  as  it  is,  "  the  word 
of  God"  (Acts  iv.  31),  "the  word  of  the  truth" 
(2  Tim.  ii.  15) ;  thus  at  Luke  i.  2 ;  Jam.  i.  22 ;  Acts 
vi.  4.  As  employed  in  this  sense,  it  may  be  brought 
into  relations  of  likeness  and  unlikeness  with  fivOo^y 
between  which  and  X0709  there  was  at  one  time  but 
a  very  slight  difference  indeed,  one  however  which 
grew  ever  wider,  until  in  the  end  a  great  gulf  has 
separated  them  each  from  the  other. 

There  are  three  distinctly  marked  stages  through 
which  ^vdo<;  has  past ;  although,  as  will  often  hap- 
pen, in  passing  into  later  meanings  it  has  not  alto- 
gether renounced  its  earlier.  At  the  first  there  is 
nothing  of  the  fabulous,  still  l^ss  of  the  false,  in- 
volved in  it.  It  stands  on  the  same  footing  with 
prjfjLa,  €7ro9,  X0709,  and  as  its  connexion  with  fiixo, 
fjLvico,  fjLv^o)  sufficiently  indicates,  must  have  sig- 
nified originally  the  word  shut  up  in  the  mind,  or 
muttered  within  the  lips  (see  Creuzer,  SymboUJc, 
vol.  iv.  p.  517) ;  although  of  this  there  is  no  trace 
in  any  actual  use  ;  for  already  in  Homer  it  appears 
as  the  spoken  word  {IL  xviii.  253),  the  tragic  poets 
and  as  many  as  form  their  diction  on  Homer  con- 


196  SYNONTMS  OF  THE 

tinuiDg  so  to  employ  it  (thus  -^schylus,  JEumeiu 
582  ;  Euripides,  Phcen.  455),  at  a  time  when  in 
Attic  prose  it  had  nearly  or  altogether  exchanged 
this  meaning  for  another. 

At  the  second  stage  of  its  progress  fivOo^  is  al- 
ready in  a  certain  antithesis  to  \6jo<;,  although  still 
employed  in  a  respectfal,  often  in  a  very  honour- 
able sense.  It  is  the  mentally  conceived  as  set  over 
against  the  historically  true.  ISTot  literal  fact,  it  is 
often  truer  than  the  literal  truth,  involves  a  higher 
teaching;  X6709  '\jr6vSj]<;,  eUovL^cov  t?)z/  akrjOeiav 
(Suidas) ;  though  not  ak7]6rj<^,  yet,  as  one  has  said, 
akrjdeLa<i  e')(cov  e/ji^aaiv.  There  is  a  X0709  iv  fivda 
('  Veritas  quse  in  fabulse  involucro  latet,'  as  Wytten- 
bach,  Plutarch^  voL  ii.  pars  1,  p.  406,  gives  it), 
which  may  have  infinitely  more  value  than  much 
which  is  actual  fact.  MvOo^  had  already  obtained 
this  significance  in  Herodotus  (ii.  45)  and  in  Pin- 
dar {Olymj).  i.  29) ;  and  Attic  prose,  as  has  been 
observed,  hardly  knows  of  any  other  (Plato,  Gorg, 
523  a ;  Phcedo,  61  a ;  Legg.  9.  8T2  d ;  Plutarch, 
Pe  Ser.  Nxim.  Yin.  18  ;  Bymjp.  i.  1.  4). 

But  in  a  world  like  ours  the  fable  easily  degene- 
rates into  the  falsehood ;  *  story,'  '  tale,'  and  other 
words  not  a  few,  bear  witness  to  the  fact ;  and  at 
its  third  stage  yJvQo^  is  the  fable,  not  any  more  al- 
lowing itself  to  be  such,  and  at  the  same  time  un- 
dertaking to  be,  and  often  being,  the  vehicle  of 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  197 

some  higlier  trutli ;  it  is  now  the  lying  fable  with, 
all  its  falsehood  and  all  its  pretended  claims  to  be 
what  it  is  not ;  and  this  is  the  only  sense  of  fivOo^ 
which  the  N.  T.  knows  (in  the  Septuagint  it  occura 
but  once,  Ecclus.  xx.  19) ;  thus  we  have  there  fivdoi 
^e/SyXoi  Kol  ypaa)Bet<;  (1  Tim.  iv.  7) ;  ^lovZalKoC  (Tit. 
i.  14) ;  a-eaocfitcriievoi  (2  Pet.  i.  16) ;  cf.  fivOoL  ire- 
ifKaa-iikvoLy  Diodorus  Siculus,  i.  93) ;  the  other  two 
uses  of  the  word  (1  Tim.  i.  4 ;  2  Tim.  iy.  4)  being 
equally  slighting  and  contemptuous. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  X0709  and  yJvQo^,  which 
start  on  their  journey  together,  or  at  all  events 
separated  by  very  slight  spaces,  gradually  part 
company,  the  antagonism  between  them  becoming 
ever  stronger,  till  in  the  end  they  stand  in  open 
opposition  to  one  another,  as  words  no  less  than 
men  must  do,  when  they  come  to  belong,  one  to 
the  kingdom  of  light  and  truth,  the  other  to  that 
of  darkness  and  lies.^ 

^  '  Legend,'  a  word  of  such  honourable  import  at  the  beginning, 
meaning  as  it  does,  that  worthy  to  be  read,  but  which  has  ended  in 
signifying  '  a  heap  of  frivolous  and  scandalous  vanities '  (Hooker),  has 
had  very  much  the  same  history  as  iivQos ;  very  similar  influences 
having  been  at  work  to  degrade  the  one  and  the  other. 


198  BYNONTMS   OF  THE 


§  xli. — Tepa<;,  o-rifietov,  Bvvafii<;,  evBo^ov,  TrapdBo^ov, 
davfidcrcov. 

All  these  words  have  this  in  common,  that  they 
are  every  one  applied  to  the  Biipernatural  works 
wrought  by  Christ  in  the  days  of  his  flesh;  thus 
a-Tjfielov,  John  ii.  11;  Acts  ii.  19;  repa?.  Acts  ii. 
22 ;  John  iv.  48 ;  Bvva/JLL<;,  Mark  vi.  22 ;  Acts  ii.  22  ; 
evBo^ov,  Luke  xiii.  17 ;  TrapdBo^ov,  Lnke  v.  26 ;  Oav- 
fjidcriov,  Matt.  xxi.  15 ;  while  the  first  three,  which 
are  by  far  the  most  nsnal,  are  in  like  manner  em- 
ployed of  the  same  supernatural  works  wrought  in 
the  power  of  Christ  by  his  Apostles  (2  Cor.  xii.  12). 
It  will  be  found,  I  think,  on  closer  examination, 
that  they  do  not  so  much  represent  different  kinds 
of  miracles,  as  miracles  contemplated  under  differ- 
ent aspects  and  from  different  points  of  view. 

The  words  T6pa<;  and  o-rj/jLecov  are  often  linked 
together  in  the  JST.  T.  (John  iv.  48  ;  Acts  ii.  22  ;  iv. 
30  ;  2  Cor.  xii.  12) ;  and  times  out  of  number  in 
the  Septuagint  (Exod.  vii.  3,  9  ;  Deut.  iv.  34 ;  !N'eh. 
ix.  10 ;  Dan.  vi.  27) ;  the  first  =  rsi^ ,  and  the 
second  =  m>< ;  often  also  in  profane  Greek,  in  Jo- 
sephus  {Antt.  xx.  8.  6) ;  in  Plutarch  {Sep.  Sap.  Con. 
3) ;  in  Polybius  (iii.  112.  8) ;  in  Philo  {De  Vit. 
Mo8.  i.  16).     The  ancients  were  fond  of  drawing  a 


NEW  TESTAMEITT.  199 

distinction  between  them  whicli,  as  will  presently 
appear,  will  not  bear  a  moment's  serious  examina- 
tion. It  is  sufficiently  expressed  in  these  words  of 
Ammonius :  ripa^  arjixeCov  Bcacpipei, '  to  fJiev  yap 
ripaf!  IT  a  pa  (j>v(7  lv  fylverai,  to  Be  aijfjLelov  ir  ap  a 
(TwrjOeiav,  and  again  by  Theophylact  (m  Eom, 
XV.  19) :  Btacpipec  Be  o-Tjfzelov  Kal  repa?  tm  to  fiev 
a-rjfxelov  ev  ro?9  KaTa  ^ixtlv  XiyeaOai,  KaLVoirpeirM'^ 
fjuevTot,  ycvofiivoc^;,  olov  iirl  tov  to  ttjv  irevOepav  He- 
Tpov  TTvpeTTOva-av  evOeco^  laOrjvai  [Matt.  viii.  15], 
TO  Be  Tepa<i  ev  toI^  /jlt)  KaTa  (j)V(7CV,  olov  to  tov  e/c 
yeveTTj^  TvcjiXov  laOrjvai  [John  ix.  7] ;  compare 
Suicer,  Thes.  s.  v.  crjiielov.  But  in  truth  this  dis- 
tinction breaks  down  so  entirely  the  instant  it  is 
examined — as  Fritzsche,  in  a  good  note  on  Eom.  xv. 
19,  has  superabundantly  shown — that  it  is  difficult 
to  understand  how  so  many,  by  repeating,  have 
accepted  it  for  their  own.  An  earthquake,  how- 
ever rare,  cannot  be  esteemed  irapa  cj^ixnv,  cannot 
therefore,  according  to  the  distinction  traced  above, 
be  called  a  Tepa^,  while  yet  Herodotus  (vi.  98)  gives 
this  name  to  the  single  earthquake  which  in  his  ex- 
perience had  visited  Delos.  As  little  can  a  sei-pent 
snatched  up  in  an  eagle's  talons  and  dropped  in  the 
midst  of  the  Trojan  anny  be  called  beyond  and 
beside  nature,  which  yet  Homer  {II.  xii.  209)  calls 
Aio<;  T€pa<;  alyioxoio.^     On  the  other  hand,  beyond 

*  On  the  Homeric  idea  of  the  repas  there  is  a  careful  discussion 
in  Nagelsbach,  Homerische  Theologie,  p.  168,  sqq. 


200  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

and  beside  natni-e  are  the  healing  with  a  word  of  a 
man  lame  from  his  mother's  womb,  satisfying  many 
thousand  men  with  a  few  loaves,  raising  a  man  fonr 
days  dead  from  the  grave,  which  all  in  Scripture  go 
by  the  name  of  aijfjLela  (Acts  iv.  16 ;  John  vi.  14 ; 
xi.  47) ;  compare  Plutarch,  Sept.  Sap.  Con.  3,  where 
a  monstrous  birth  is  styled  both  a  Tepa<;  and  a 
(TTjfielov.  It  is  plain  then  that  the  distinction  must 
be  sought  elsewhere.  Origen  has  not  seized  it,  who 
says  {in  Bom.  xv.  19)  '  Signa  [o-i^/^era]  appellantur 
in  quibus  cum  sit  aliquid  mirabile,  indicatur  quoque 
aliqidd  futurum.  Prodigia  \TkpaTa\  vero  in  quibus 
tantummodo  aliquid  mirabile  ostenditur.'  Kather 
the  same  miracle  is  npon  one  side  a  repa?,  on  an- 
other a  aTjfielov,  and  the  words  most  often  refer  not 
to  different  classes  of  miracles,  but  to  different  qual- 
ities in  the  same  miracles;  in  the  words  of  Lampe 
{Comm.  in  Joh.  vol.  i.  p.  613) :  '  Eadem  euim  mi- 
racula  dici  possunt  signa,  quatenus  aliquid  sen  oc- 
cultum  seu  futurum  decent ;  et  prodigia  (jepaTo), 
quatenus  aliquid  extraordinarium,  quod  stuporem 
excitat,  sistunt.  Hinc  sequitur  signorum  notion  em 
latins  patere,  quam  prodigiorum.  Omnia  prodigia 
sunt  signa,  quia  in  ilium  usum  a  Deo  dispensata,  ut 
arcanum  indicent.  Sed  omnia  signa  non  sunt  pro- 
digia, quia  ad  signandum  res  coelestes  aliquando 
etiam  res  communes  adhibentur.' 

Tepa^!,  certainly  not  derived  from  rpico,  the  ter- 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  201 

rifjing,  but  now  put  generally  in  connexion  with 
T7]peco,  as  being  that  which  for  its  extraordinary 
character  is  wont  to  be  observed  and  Jcept  in  the 
memory,  is  always  rendered  "  wonder  "  in  onr  Yer- 
sion.  It  is  the  miracle  regarded  as  a  startling,  im- 
posing, amazement-wakening  portent  or  prodigy; 
being  elsewhere  frequently  us'ed  for  strange  appear- 
ances in  the  heavens,  and  perhaps  more  frequently 
still  for  monstrous  births  on  the  earth  (Herodotus, 
vii.  57 ;  Plato,  Crat.  393  h).  It  is  thus  used  very 
much  with  the  same  meaning  as  the  Latin  '  mon- 
strum '  ^  {'  Nee  dubiis  ea  signa  dedit  Tritonia  mo7i- 
stris,''  Yirgil),  or  the  Homeric  a-rj/xa  (11.  ii.  308 : 
evG'  i(j)dv7]  fjiiya  arjiJLa,  BpaKcov).  Origen  (m  Jbh. 
torn.  xiii.  §  60 ;  in  Rom.  lib.  x.  §  12)  long  ago  called 
attention  to  "^^he  fact  that  the  name  Tepara  is  never 
in  the  N.  T.  applied  to  these  works  of  wonder,  ex- 
cept in  connexion  with  some  other  name.  They 
are  often  called  arj/jLela,  often  hvva[iel<:,  often  repara 
ical  crrjiieia,  jnore  than  once  repara,  ar)fji€ia,  Kal  Bv- 
vajMm,  but  never  repara  alone.  The  observation 
was  well  worth  the  making  ;  for  the  fact  which  we 

-  On  the  same  similar  group  of  synonymous  words  in  the  Latin, 
Augustine  writes  as  follows  {De  Civ.  Dei,  xxi.  8) :  *  Monstra  sane 
dicta  perhibent  a  monstrando,  quod  aliquid  significando  demonstrant, 
et  ostenta  ad  ostendendo,  et  portenta  a  portendendo,  id  est,  praeosten- 
dendo,  et  prodigia  quod  porro  dicant,  id  est,  futura  prsedicant.'  Com- 
pare Cicero,  De  JDivin.  i.  42. 
9* 


202  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

are  tlms  bidden  to  note  is  indeed  eminently  charac- 
teristic of  the  miracles  of  the  !N.  T. ;  namely,  that 
a  title,  by  which  more  than  any  other  these  might 
seem  to  hold  on  to  the  prodigies  and  portents  of  the 
heathen  world,  and  to  have  something  akin  to  them, 
shonld  thus  never  be  permitted  to  appear,  except  in 
the  company  of  some  other,  necessarily  suggesting 
higher  thoughts  about  them. 

But  the  miracles  are  also  Grjiiela.  Of  crrifjbelov 
Basil  the  Great  {in  Esai.  vii.  §  198)  furnishes  ns 
a  good  definition :  ea-Ti  o-rjixelov  Trpa'yiMa  (^avepov, 
KCKpy/jb/jLevov  tlvo<;  koX  d(pavov<;  iv  eavrat  rrjv  S/jXo)- 
o-Lv  exov :  and  presently  after  y  fiivroi  Fpa^rj  ra 
TrapdBo^a,  koI  Trapao-rarcKci  tlvo<;  ijlvcttikov  \6yov 
arj/jLela  KoKel.  Among  all  the  names  which  the 
miracles  bear,  their  ethical  end  and  parpose  comes 
out  in  crrjfielov  with  the  most  distinctness,  as  in 
Tipa<;  with  the  least.  It  is  involved  and  declared 
in  the  very  word  that  the  prime  object  and  end  of 
the  miracle  is  to  lead  us  to  something  out  of  and 
beyond  itself;  that,  so  to  speak,  it  is  a  kind  of 
finger-post  of  God  {8i,oa7)fjL€ia,  signs  from  Zeus,  is 
no  unfrequent  word  in  later  Greek),  pointing  for 
us  to  this  (Isai.  vii.  11 ;  xxxviii.  T) ;  valuable  not 
BO  much  for  what  it  is  as  for  that  which  it  indicates 
of  the  grace  and  power  of  the  doei*,  or  of  the  con- 
nexion with  a  higher  world  in  which  he  stands 
(Mark  xvi.  20 ;    Acts  xiv.  3  ;J  Ileb.  ii.  4  ;   Exod. 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  203 

vii.  9,  10 ;  1  Kings  xiii.  3).  Lampe  has  put  this 
well :  '  Designat  sane  o-TjfieLov  natnra  sua  rem  non 
tantum  extraordinariam,  sensusqiie  percellentem, 
sed  etiam  talem,  quae  in  rei  alterius,  absentis  licet 
et  futurse,  significationem  atque  adumbratioiiem  ad- 
hibetur,  unde  et  prognostica  (Matt.  xvi.  3)  et  tjpi 
(Matt.  xii.  39 ;  Luc.  xi.  29)  nee  non  sacramenta^ 
quale  est  illud  circumcisionis  (Rom.  iv.  11),  eodem 
nomine  in  IN".  T.  exprimi  solent.  Aptissime  ergo 
hsec  vox  de  miraculis  usui*patur,  ut  indicet,  quod 
non  tantum  admirabili  modo  fuerint  perpetrata,  sed 
etiam  sapientissimo  consilio  Dei  ita  directa  atque 
ordinata,  ut  fuerint  simul  charaeteres  Messise,  ex 
quibus  cognoscendus  erat,  sigilla  doctringe  quam 
proferebat,  et  beneficiorum  gratisB  per  Messiam 
jam  prsestandse,  nee  non  typi  viarum  Dei,  earum- 
que  circumstantiarum  per  quas  talia  beneficia  erant 
applicanda.'  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  a-rjfjbetov  is 
not  always  rendered  "  sign  "  in  our  Yersion ;  but 
in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  where  it  is  of  very  fre- 
quent recurrence,  ''  sign  "  too  often  gives  place  to 
the  vaguer  "  miracle ; "  and  often  not  without  loss 
to  the  force  of  the  words :  thus  see  iii.  2 ;  vii.  31 ; 
X.  41 ;  and  above  all,  vi.  26. 

But  the  miracles  are  also  '  j)Owers '  {hwajxeU 
=  '  virtutes '),  being  as  they  are,  outcomings  of 
that  great  power  of  God,  which  was  inherent  in 
Christ,  who   was  Himself  that  "  great  Power  of 


204  BYNONYMS   OF  THE 

God"  which  Simon  blasphemouslv  allowed  him- 
self to  be  named  (Acts  viii.  8, 10) ;  and  was  by  Him 
lent  to  those  who  were  his  witnesses  and  ambassa- 
dors. It  is  only  to  be  regretted  that  in  our  Yer- 
sion  this  word  is  translated  now  "  wonderful  works  " 
(Matt.  vii.  22);  now  "mighty  works"  (Matt.  xi. 
20 ;  Luke  x.  13) ;  and  still  more  frequently  "  mira- 
cles "  (Acts  ii.  22 ;  1  Cor.  xii.  10 ;  Gal.  iii.  5) ;  in 
this  last  case  giving  such  tautologies  as  "  miracles 
and  wonders  "  (Acts  ii.  22  ;  Heb.  ii.  4) ;  and  always 
causing  something  to  be  lost  of  the  true  energy  of 
the  word — pointing  as  it  does  to  new  forces  which 
have  entered  and  are  working  in  this  world  of  ours. 
With  this  is  closely  connected  the  term  ixe'yaXela  = 
'  magnalia '  (Luke  i.  49),  in  which  in  like  manner 
the  miracles  are  contemplated  as  outcomings  of  the 
greatness  of  God's  power. 

The  miracles  are  further  styled  evSo^a  (Luke 
xiii.  17),  as  being  works  in  which  the  Bo^a  of  God 
and  of  the  Son  of  God  shone  manifestly  forth  (John 
ii.  11 ;  xi.  40 ;  Luke  v.  25,  26 ;  Acts  iii.  13,  16). 
They  are  irapaBo^a,  as  being  "  strange  things " 
(Luke  V.  26),  "  new  things  "  (Num.  xvi.  30),  beside 
and  beyond  all  expectation  of  men.  The  word, 
though  occurring  only  this  once  in  the  IST.  T.,  is  of 
very  frequent  occuiTence  in  ecclesiastical  Greek. 
They  are  Oavfidaia,  as  provoking  wonder  (Matt, 
xxi.  15) ;  OavfxaTa  they  are  never  called  in  the  N.  T., 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  205 

though  this  too  is  a  name  which  they  often  bear  in 
the  writings  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  and  the  Oavfid- 
^ec  is  often  brought  out  as  their  consequence  (Matt. 
Yiii.  27 ;  ix.  8,  33  ;  xv.  31). 


§xlii. 


[I  add  in  a  concluding  article  a  few  passages,  bearing  on 
some  New  Testament  synonyms,  which  I  have  not  undertaken 
to  distinguish  at  length]. 

a.  (l)6po<;,  TeXo9. — Grotius :  ^opot,  tributa  sunt 
quse  ex  agris  solvebantur,  atque  in  ipsis  speciebus 
fere  pendebantur,  id  est  in  tritico,  ordeo,  vino  et 
similibus.  Yectigalia  vero  sunt  quae  Grasce  dicun- 
tur  riXrj,  quae  a  publicanis  conducebantur  et  exi- 
gebantur,  cum  tributa  a  susceptoribus  vel  ab  ap- 
paritoribus  prsesidum  ac  prsefectorum  exigi  sole- 
rent. 

^.  KoXo^  [Luke  xxi.  5],  co^oato?.— -Basil  the  Great 
{Eb7n.  in  Fs.  xliv.)  :  to  oipatov  rod  Kokov  hajiipec  • 
OTV  TO  fiev  (hpalov  Xiyerac  to  avfjLTreTrXrjpcofiivov  eh 
Tov  iwcTTjBecov  Kacpov  irpo^i  ttjv  olKelav  clkimtiv  '  co? 
Q)pa2o<;  0  Kapiro^  Trj<i  d/MiriXov,  6  t^j/  oiKclav  ire^lnv 
€(-9  TeXelaxrcv  iavToO  8ia  T7J<;  tov  gtov^  wpa^  dTroXa- 


SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

PcaVy  Kal  eirLTr^heio^  eh  cnroXavaiv '  kcCKov  Se  eatb  to 
iv  Trj  avvdeaeu   tcov  /jlcXcov  evdp/nodTov,  eiravdovaav 

7.  7rpea-l3vT7j<;,  yepwv. — Augustine  {Enarr.  in  Ps. 
Ixx.  18) :  Senecta  et  senium  discernuntur  a  Grsecis. 
Gravitas  enim  post  juventutem  aliud  nomen  liabet 
apud  Grsecos,  et  post  ipsam  gravitatem  veniens  ul- 
tima setas  aliud  nomen  habet ;  nam  irpea^vrr)^  dici- 
tur  gravis,  et  ryepoav  senex.  Quia  autem  in  Latina 
lingua  duorum  istorum  nominum  distinctio  deficit, 
de  senectute  ambo  sunt  positse,  senecta  et  senium. 
Scitis  autem  esse  duas  setates.  Cf.  Qucest.  m  Gen, 
i.  70. 

h.  6<f>€iX6i,  Bet. — Bengel  {Gnomon,  1  Cor.  xi.  10): 
6(f)eL\€i  notat  obligationem,  Bel  necessitatem ;  illud 
morale  est,  hoc  quasi  physicum;  ut  in  vernacula, 
wir  sollen  und  miissen. 

€.  reOefieXico/jLevof;,  eBpaco^. — Bengel  {lb.  Col.  i. 
23):  TeOefjLeXcco/jLevoCy  affixi  fundamento  j  eBpaioi, 
stabiles,  firmi  intus.  Illud  metaphoricum  est,  hoc 
magis  proprium;  illud  importat  majorem  respec- 
tum  2id/unda7)ientum  quo  sustentantur  fideles  ;  sed 
eBpatoL,  stabiles,  dicit  internum  robur,  quod  fideles 
ipsi  habent;  quemadmodum  sedificium  primo  qui- 
dem  fundamento  recte  solideque  inniti,  deinde  vero 


NEW  TESTAMENT.  207 

sua  etiam  mole  probe  cohgerere  et  firmiter  consistere 
debet. 

f.  '^L6vpi(TTri<;y  KaTd\d\o<;. — Fritzscbe  (in  Rom, 
i.  30)  :  -slrLdvpicrral  sunt  susurrones,  b.  e.  clandestini 
delatores,  qui  ut  inviso  bomini  noceant  quge  ei 
probro  sint  crimina  tanquam  in  aurem  alieni  insu- 
surrant.  Contra  KaraXaXot  omnes  ii  Yocantur,  qui 
quae  alicujus  fanise  obsint  narrant,  sermonibns  cele- 
brant, divulgant  maloque  rumore  aliquem  differunt, 
sive  id  malo  animo  faciant  ut  noceant,  sive  temere 
neque  nisi  garriendi  libidine  abrepti.  Qui  utrum- 
que  vocabulum  ita  discriminant,  ut  'yjndvpKrrdf; 
clandestinos  calumniatores,  /caraXaXov^s  calumnia- 
tores  qui  jpropalam  criminentur  explicent,  arctiori- 
bus  quam  fas  est  limitibus  yoc.  KaraXaXot  circum- 
scribunt,  quum  id  voc.  calumniatorem  nocendi  cu- 
pidum  sua  vi  non  declaret. 

7;.  a%/37;crTo?,  d'x^pelo^;, — ^Tittmann :  Omnino  in 
voce  dxpv^To<;  non  inest  tantum  notio  negativa  quam 
vocant  {ov  x/?^crtyLtoi^),  sed  adjecta  ut  plerumque  con- 
traria  tov  irovqpov,  quod  non  tantum  nihil  prodest, 
sed  etiam  damnum  affert,  molestum  et  damnosum 
est.  Apud  Xenopbontem,  Hiero  i.  27,  rydfio^ 
axpw^^^  non  est  inutilis,  sed  molestissimus,  et  in 
CEconom,  viii.  4.  Sed  in  voce  dxpeLo<;  per  se  nulla 
inest  nota  reprebensionis,  tantum  denotat  rem  aut 


208  SYl^ONYMS   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

hominem  quo  non  opus  est,  quo  supersedere  possu- 
mus,  unnothig,  unentbehrlicli  [Tliucjdides,  i.  84; 
ii.  6],  quse  ipsa  tamen  raro  sine  vituperatione  di' 
cuntur. 


INDEX  OF  SYNONYMS. 


PAGE 

dyadoaavvT)   58 

ayios .' .  182 

dyvorjixa 69 

dyvos 182 

dypdymaTos 150 

adoXos 23 

aiTTj^a 1 

aloiv 35 

aKUKOS 23 

aKepaios 23 

a[xapTr)[ia 69 

dyLapria 69 

dfjL(jii^\T](rTpov 64 

civefxos 116 

dvdpCdTTOKTOVOS 166 

dvop.ia 69 

dvoxT] 11 

dvri 163 

drrXovs 23 

dTTokvTpaxris 134 

dpxaios 81 

aa-TTovdos 8 

da-vp&eros 8 

dxpe7os 207 

axprja-TOS 207 

/Swfxo'ff 87 


PA  OB 

yepcov . .  206 

yvuio-ts 124 

derjaLs 1 

Set 206 

dlKTVOV 64 

doKCO) 154 

boKipd^o) 119 

SoXoo)   52 

bvvaixis 198 

idpaios 206 

elXiKpivfjs 172 

'^udo^ou 198 

€VT€V^LS 1 

cniyvaxris 124 

eTri&vpia 178 

evxapLcrTia 1 

^hn 1 

^aov 159 

^TTTjpa 69 

davpaaiov 198 

&r)plov 159 

Skl^^is 20 


210 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

^prjve<o 66 

Bva-iaaTrjpiov 87 

Idea 97 

IdioiTrjs 150 

iepos 182 

iKeTTjpla 1 

ikaarfJios 134 

KoQapos 172 

Kaivos 42 

Kaipos 30 

Ka\6s 205 

Ka7rr)\€vco 52 

KaTokaXos 207 

KaraWayrj 134 

KOTTTtO 66 

Koapos 35 

KpaiTToK-q 49 

Kcopos 49 

XaXe'o) 129 

\a\id 129 

X/yo) 129 

\6yos 129,  190,  194 

Xvneopai 66 

p,aKpo6vpia 11 

t^^XV 1T6 

p(dr] 49 

perapeXopai 90 

fJi€Tavo€a> 90 

fJ^op(j)f) 97 

piii6os 194 

Vfos 42 


PAGB 

olvo({)\vy'ia 49 

ope^LS 178 

opp^ 178 

oaios 182 

ocjie'iXei 206 

nados 178 

naXaios 81 

TTapd^aais 69 

Tvapabo^ov 198 

napaKOT) 69 

napavopia 69 

TrapdiTTcopa 69 

7T€ipdC(o 119 

nev&ioi 66 

TTvevpa 116 

TTVOT] 116 

TToXepos 176 

7TOVT]p6s 169 

TTOTOS 49 

npeo-^vTrjs 206 

npoa-evxr] 1 

crayrjvT] 64 

orapKtKos 106,  112 

adpKivos 112 

(Trjpeiov 198 

(TiKapios 166 

aocfiia 124 

anaraXdci) 17 

arevoxoipia 20 

a-Tprjvidco 17 

0"X^/^« 97 

rc6epeXioi)pevos 206 

TeXos 205 


INDEX. 


211 


PAGE 

repas  .  ■ 198 

rpvcfidoi 17 

v[ivos 142 

vnep 163 

VTToyLOvr) 11 

<f)aLvoixaL    154 

<f)av\os 169 

^epco 84 

(povevs 166 

(jiopeo) 84 


PAGB 

(popos 205 

<pp6vr]cris 124 

(pCOVT] 190 

XP'>]0't6tt]s 58 

Xpopos 80 

y^akpos 142 

yl/-i6vpi(TTr}s 207 

yj^vxi-iios 106 

wSt; 142 

ujpaios 205 


n. 


INDEX  OF  OTHER  WORDS. 


PAGE 

ddlKYJIXa 72 

dbiKia T2 

Aer 116 

aivos 146 

CLKriparos 25 

aKTJpVKTOS 9 

Altare 89 

dvaKaivoco 47 

dvaveoo) 47 

Angor 21 

Angst 21 

Animal 161 

dvorjTos 126 

Antic 85 

Ara 89 

Archaeology 82 

Astutus 127 

davvcTos 126 

Atonement 139 

Aura 116 

Benignitas 61 

Bestia 161 

Bitte 3 

Bonitas 61 

Oanticum 146 


pAoa 

XprjaTos 60 

Comissatio 50 

Crapula 51 

Deprecatio 2 

dcaXkayr] 137 

diKaios 184 

doKLHiov 119 

elXiKpiveia 173 

epneXeia 81 

enaivos 146 

€vpv)(^Ci)pia 21 

Figura 104 

Figure 102 

Forma 104 

Formality 103 

Forme 102 

Fulsomeness 52 

Glassen 113 

Gebet 3 

Iladiwist 94 

dyucia 188 

dyvl^co 189 


INDEX. 


213 


PAGE 

077X07775 23 

i\acrTT]ptov 139 

Hjmnus 146 

Iniquitas 75 

Intercession 3 

Interpellatio 4 

Jaculum 64 

Kaivokoyla 45 

KarrrfKos 53 

KaTadTprjviaa) 18 

Laetitia 22 

Legend 197 

Little-ease 22 

Longanimity 12 

Luctus 66 

XvrpoiTTjs 135 

fid)(Ofxai 176 

fierajieXeia 90 

li€Tafiop(pov}xaL 100 

fierdvoia 90 

fieracrxilP-fiTL^a) 102 

Monstrum 201 

Mundus 37 

Keuf 48 

Nouveau 48 

Nevus 48 

oXvaxris 49 

Opportunitas 33 


PAGE 

Palaeologj 82 

Patientia 13 

Pecco,  peccatum 75 

Perse  verantia 13 

Petitio 6 

(j)i\oa-o(f)La 124 

4>pdC<^  132 

TrAarvo-juof 22 

TrXrjp.jxeXeia 81 

Poenitentia 94 

77oXe/xea) 176 

Prsevaricatio 76 

Precatio 2 

Prodigium 200 

Propitiation 140 

Prudentia 125 

Eecens 48 

Sagena 65 

Sapientia 125 

Seculum 40 

ai]fxa 201 

Senecta 206 

Senium 206 

Sensual Ill 

Sicarius 167 

Simplex .• 23 

Signum 200 

Spiritus 116 

(TTTOvhr) 10 

Stonen 113 

Strenuus 18 

crvv6r}KT] 10 

(TV(TXW°^''-C^ 1^1 

Susurro...- 207 


214 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

Tempus 30 

Tento 123 

^avfia 204 

Tolerantia 14 

Transfigure 100 

Transform 100 

TpV(})T} 19 

Tugend 170 


FAOB 

Yentus 116 

Yerbum 192 

Yetus 85 

Yox 192 

Welt 41 

Weralt 41 

World 41 


Date  Due 

H^lSJ^Im^ 

! 

mmsm^ 

9 

i\ 

♦ 

tt  )  .,                                ,,;.  ^ 

■^mM^^m 

m 

r>-   ■   ■■ 

m-^rrn 

?t-- 

^ 

BS2385.2.T791868V.2 

Synonyms  of  the  New  Testament.  Second 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1   1012  00.077  6189 


